Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Discrimination in Sport

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of the Rugby Football Union to discuss discrimination in sport.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I meet representatives of the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby League on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that one of the finest qualities of the Secretary of State is his sense of humour? Is he aware that in his previous post at the Treasury the Secretary of State told me in a parliamentary answer that top rugby union players did not pay income tax because theirs was strictly an amateur sport? In view of the money now accruing to the Government as a result of the Inland Revenue investigation of rugby union, would it not be right and proper for that funding to be passed directly to the Rugby League for use in ground improvement, in recognition of the discrimination that that sport has suffered in the past 100 years?

Mr. Sproat: It is true that the Inland Revenue is currently investigating the income of not only rugby league but rugby union players. As for the safety of sports grounds, I am trying to find a way to help rugby league and not just association football.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that rugby union is a game played nationwide by men and boys aged six to 60—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: And women.

Sir Donald Thompson: —and by some ladies, and that relations between the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union have never been better since the Rugby League was formed at the George hotel in 1895?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. Relations between the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby League are at an all-time peak. The meeting on 27 January between Mr. Walker and Mr. Lindsey, representing rugby league, and Mr. Pugh and Mr. Rowlands, representing rugby union, was of great symbolic importance. The gangways between rugby union and rugby league are opening up. That is a good

thing. I should also point out that Wasps rugby football club has provided the ground for the amateur rugby league final in London for the past five years. That is a good thing and typical.

Mr. Hoyle: In view of that encouraging reply, is the Minister aware of the case of my constituent, Adrian Spencer, who played amateur rugby league football with Woolston? He played a few games for London Crusaders, for which he received no payment; yet when he played in the Varsity match he was suspended for 12 months. Will the Minister note the contrast between him and Mike Catt, the England player, who admitted receiving £140 per week expenses when he played in South Africa but was exonerated? Will he seek a meeting with the Rugby Union to condemn the injustice to my constituent and ask for his reinstatement forthwith? Will he also ask it to apply rules for 1995 and not those more akin to 1895?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Adrian Spencer, who played for only a few minutes; he was on and off the field so quickly that I hardly noticed him, but the hon. Gentleman's point is none the less important and I will draw it to the attention of the rugby union authorities.

Gardening

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to allocate funds to promote gardening.

Mr. Sproat: The Department of National Heritage, its agencies and sponsored bodies do not give grants to gardening as an activity in its own right. However, through a number of its agencies and bodies the Department supports the maintenance and preservation of gardens of historic and heritage interest.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the outstanding success of Benfleet horticultural society, of which I am a member? Does he agree that the national heritage of Great Britain is characterised by ordinary front and rear gardens and allotments and not by men in tights and large Italian singers? Will any funds be available from the national lottery for our great garden institutions, such as Kew gardens?

Mr. Sproat: I agree about the great importance of allotments. In fact, the Department of the Environment gives £35,000 per year to the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners. On the national lottery, it would be appropriate for applications to be made to the National Heritage memorial fund for historic gardens and I saw in the newspaper this morning that Kew gardens is applying for £41 million from the millennium fund.

Mr. Flynn: Is not the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) right in saying that our gardens are a great tourist attraction? The Secretary of State said that he would announce the strategy for tourism—promised before Christmas—on St. David's day at the Tower of London. While the choice of day is admirable, why on earth is it not being presented to Parliament so that we


can debate in detail many of the controversial issues in that statement? When will the House hear what our strategy for tourism is?

Mr. Sproat: I have no doubt that a proper opportunity will be found for the House to express its views on that important matter.

Cross-media Ownership

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received on cross-media ownership; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to announce his proposals on cross-media ownership.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The Government have received 64 written representations since the review was announced last year. We shall announce our conclusions when we have completed consideration of the issues that they raise.

Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the series of separate boxes within which the different aspects of the media are regulated are looking as outdated as a 1950s television set? Would it not better reflect the interaction of rapidly developing technologies if considerations of monopoly and limitations on ownership were determined by reference to a more fluid, across-the-board assessment at national or local level or both?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which he will know has been the subject of an investigation by the British media industry group. He will also know that if we pursued the train of thought that he suggests, the most difficult questions would arise in terms of the measurement of the value of a share in one part of the media compared with the value of a share in another part of that market. In other words, how much is one newspaper share worth as against one television share? Those are difficult and intricate issues to which I do not think that anyone in the industry believes that we have a convincing solution.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister bear it in mind that in this consideration it is more important to get it right than to get it quick? Will he bear in mind primarily the need to stop any further erosion of the regionally based ITV companies, which have already been far too undermined by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Secondly, will he bear in mind the need to avoid local media monopolies of any kind? Thirdly, will he bear in mind the need to attract more money into programme production rather than any struggle for transmission facilities?

Mr. Dorrell: I certainly agree that it is more important to get it right than to get it quickly. That is why we are taking our time to ensure that the issues are properly teased out. Having said that, however, it is also important to bring the process to a close because important issues to do with the structure of the market, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) referred, need to be resolved. As regards the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the importance of

regional diversity and of ensuring that monopolies are avoided at regional as well as national level, I agree with him and it will be one of the aspects covered in the Government's conclusions.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that mobility of labour within the media is tremendously important? Does he not think it a little rich and rather worrying that the head of news at BBC Westminster is leaving to become director of campaigning and elections for the Labour party?

Mr. Dorrell: I do not intend to get involved in offering career advice to an employee of any part of the public sector. Clearly, it is important that anyone who takes a job as campaigning officer for the Labour party should have career plans beyond the next election because the Labour party will not provide them.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State will agree that one of the main strands of a fair and sensible cross-media ownership settlement is to ensure that self-regulation of the press works and is seen to work. Does he also agree that, above all, a fair-minded and impartial weighing up of sensitive evidence is needed from the Press Complaints Commission? How can that possibly happen when a man as rudely opinionated and irrational as Sir Bernard Ingham is proposed for membership?

Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure that press privacy regulations arise directly out of cross-media ownership, but I am happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government have made it clear that we would prefer a model for regulation of the press built on the principles of self-regulation. It follows from that proposition that responsibility for appointing people to the self-regulatory body rests not with the Government or the Opposition but with the press itself. None the less, the effectiveness of any model for self-regulation depends on an effective policing body. Whatever else may be said about Sir Bernard Ingham—for this purpose, his views are frankly irrelevant—no one can deny that he is effective. If we want an effective regulator, effectiveness is the criterion that we should apply to potential candidates.

Football Stadiums

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the requirement for all-seater stadiums at league football matches.

Mr. Sproat: The issue was most recently reviewed in 1992 when it was decided that the all-seater requirement would apply only to clubs in the Football Association premier league and the first division of the Football League. Virtually all those clubs now have all-seater stadiums. All other Football League clubs are being allowed to retain standing accommodation. I have no plans to review the matter again.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the majority of football fans seem to agree that the exciting character of football matches has been seriously undermined by the removal of standing areas? In view of recent initiatives on safe standing areas, is there not


a case for the Minister to review the matter, particularly for clubs in the first division which have not completed their all-seater arrangements?

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry to say that the short answer is no. As for football fans enjoying standing on the terraces, it is true that they did and there are arguments in favour of terraces, but they are not so great as the arguments for all-seater stadiums which, although not a panacea, have helped to increase the number of people watching football matches over the past 10 years by 1.2 million.

Mr. Orme: As one who supports all-seater stadiums, does the Minister agree with me that their purpose is not only to make football more accessible and allow people to see matches properly but to have some control over crowds? What action will the Government take to offset the current rise in racism in sport?

Mr. Sproat: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that all-seater stadiums appear to have helped to control violence, from whatever source, at grounds. They do not stop it but, combined with measures such as closed-circuit television, they are of great benefit. I am in the process of holding a number of meetings with the premier league, the Football Association and the Football League to see what more, if anything, can be done.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only right and proper that in the 1990s people should he able to watch football in comfort and safety, and that all-seater stadiums provide both? Does he agree that, where people can choose between attending an all-seater stadium or a stadium in which there is standing room only, they usually prefer the all-seater stadium?

Mr. Sproat: I think that, on balance, my hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting that a number of clubs which do not have to go all-seater, such as Birmingham, Huddersfield and Northampton, have chosen to do so because their fans find such grounds better for watching football matches.

Mr. Pendry: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a strong point about safe standing areas at football grounds. Is the Minister also aware of the need for more flexibility towards clubs attempting to relocate their grounds outside town centres, as recommended in the Taylor report and by the Sports Council? Does he appreciate that unless he resolves the differences between his Department and the Department of the Environment as the planning Department, many clubs will go to the wall and that our national game will be the poorer for the loss of clubs already in difficulty such as Southampton, Portsmouth, Exeter, Bristol Rovers, Sunderland, Oxford United and Grimsby, to name but a few?

Mr. Sproat: It is certainly true that a number of clubs want to relocate, but have been unable to do so. I believe that Southend wants to relocate, but has been unable to find a place to relocate. The recent decision about Portsmouth is a good example. A balance must be struck between the needs of the planning authorities and those of the football clubs. We shall do our best to see that a fair balance is struck.

National Lottery

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from organisations which wish to relieve the Arts Council of its responsibilities for distributing funds from the national lottery.

Mr. Sproat: I have received no such representations.

Mr. Duncan: In view of some rather puzzling criticism that has appeared in the newspapers, notably the Evening Standard and The Independent, about the distribution of lottery funds by the Arts Council, will the Minister undertake to consult Lord Cowrie to satisfy himself that the procedures laid down by the Arts Council are set at the highest possible standard?

Mr. Sproat: Yes. My hon. Friend has made an important point. I also noticed the article in The Independent, which seemed to suggest that some members of advisory panels on the Arts Council, or their institutions, had been in receipt of funds from the Arts Council. Now that the national lottery is more than doubling—or is at least likely to do so—the amount of money that the Arts Council has to distribute, it is only right that the financial procedures should be absolutely above all suspicion. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the National Audit Office expects shortly to announce its validation—or otherwise, I suppose—of the Arts Council's suggestions.

Ms Hoey: Does the Minister accept that the Arts Council would have more money to distribute from the national lottery if Camelot was not taking such huge profits, which were not taken into account when the regulations governing who should get the contract to start with were drawn up? It is about time that the Minister addressed that problem and forced Camelot to pay back its start-up costs immediately.

Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree. Camelot agreed to bid and accept the franchise on the basis of a return of between 5 and 6 per cent. of the franchise. That was the risk that it took and that percentage is a perfectly fair return. In fact, it was the lowest return offered by any of the companies which bid for the franchise.

Tourism

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the importance of the arts in attracting visitors to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dorrell: The arts play a vital role in bringing visitors to this country. In the 1993 London overseas visitors survey, 69 per cent. of overseas visitors cited the heritage as one of the main reasons for their visit and 45 per cent. mentioned the arts and museums and galleries as being among the main reasons for their visit.

Mr. Waterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that on top of the figures he has already quoted, on average one theatre seat in three in London is filled by a foreign visitor? Does he agree


that that illustrates the importance of his support for the arts, and particularly the extra £7 million for cultural causes that he announced recently?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about London theatres. He might have added that not only are one third of London theatre seats sold to overseas visitors, but a further third are sold to visitors from out of London who buy theatre tickets during their visit to the city. That is a good example of the circular and benign relationship which binds the arts and the tourist industry, giving each a vested interest in the expansion of the other.

Mr. Enright: Does the Secretary of State agree that regional arts are extremely important in that context? Will he specifically consider Wakefield sculpture park, which is a world leader and desperately in need of assistance?

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that the principles illustrated by the London case apply with equal force across the United Kingdom. The example of the Wakefield sculpture park is regularly cited to me as an arts venue that attracts visitors to a region to which they might not otherwise go.

National Centre for Athletics

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to establish a new national centre for athletics; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: The establishment of a new national centre for athletics is essentially a matter for the British Athletic Federation. However, I am concerned that proper sporting structures should exist to enable our young sportsmen and women to reach their potential.

Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the great distinction that our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), achieved largely without support, would it be possible to encourage and support future athletes? During my hon. Friend the Minister's visit to Australia, did he manage to visit the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra? If so, what does it cost to run and who profits, and would such an institution in Britain be eligible for national lottery funding?

Mr. Sproat: It would certainly be possible for an organisation in this country comparable with the Australian Institute of Sport to be funded by the national lottery. From memory, I believe that the cost of the Australian model is about £10 million per year.I am sure that the relevant organisations will want to consider that closely.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I persuade the Minister not to be diverted by the suggestion that a national centre is the way to increase the standard of performance in athletics once and for all? Will he accept from me that proper opportunities at school, a vibrant system of club athletics and the provision of adequate facilities—especially indoor facilities, given

the climate of the United Kingdom—are much more likely in the long term to produce the type of performances that we would all wish?

Mr. Sproat: I agree 100 per cent. with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the benefits which would flow from obtaining the school, university, club and indoor facilities that he would wish. However, I do not think that any of that means that we should not consider something more central as well, but that is a matter for the British Athletic Federation to consider.

Company Connections, Wales

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his investigations into the connection between the Penwyn Pinc Company, the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Company, the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority-S4C.

Mr. Dorrell: My Department has received reports from ABSA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority on the circumstances of an award to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council under the business sponsorship incentive scheme. It has commissioned a separate review, independent of the bodies involved, from a senior Treasury official, Mr. John Beastall. Both ABSA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority will be closely involved in the review.

Mr. Morgan: Notwithstanding that answer, does the Secretary of State agree that there is the whiff of cultural money laundering about the entire episode? In the light of previous unhappy experiences with aspects of ABSA's management and the insider trading that went on in that organisation, will he agree to accelerate the review and announce its results to the House at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Dorrell: It was because we were concerned about reports in respect of the Welsh arrangements for BSIS distribution that we asked Mr. Beastall to conduct the investigation. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that his report will be made available to the House.

Quality of Service

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria or benchmarks are used to measure the quality of service provided by his Department.

Mr. Sproat: We have performance targets for the key areas in which services are delivered to ensure that they are of high quality and that they support the Department's aims and objectives.

Mr. Mackinlay: Why does the Minister not use the year 1979 as his benchmark? Does he agree that our cherished buildings are falling into decay, we cannot excel in international sporting competitions and the quality of our performing arts is being diminished as a result of lack of funding? Is he aware that the Library Association is especially worried about the serious cuts in the public library service in recent years and the fact that the Treasury projects a further two years of cuts in that area? How does the Minister intend to ensure


that public libraries are enhanced, improved and reopened instead of being closed, as has been the hallmark of the Tory years?

Mr. Sproat: I will deal with as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as I can remember.
Capital expenditure on sports facilities will come under the lottery and I hope that that will be wisely used.
On the arts, the hon. Gentleman knows that £191.1 million has been given to the Arts Council of England next year—an increase of 3.7 per cent.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish local public libraries to flourish. With regard to spending, the hon. Gentleman should speak to the Department of the Environment about the standard spending assessment.

Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister actually read the Library Association's survey, which shows the cuts that are taking place in library authorities controlled by all political parties throughout the country? Does he not understand the damage that cuts in public libraries do to communities, to the education of children and of adults, to literacy and to the information revolution that the Government surely want to take place? How can people take full advantage of the information revolution coming through the super-highways if, as a result of the stupid cuts that the Conservative Government are implementing, access to information cannot be obtained through public libraries, which are the one means of access that everyone—small companies and individuals—can have to the information revolution?

Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's main point, I share his views on the importance of public libraries. My Department will shortly be publishing our response to the review and opportunities will no doubt be found in the House to discuss both the review and the Department's response to it.

British Film Industry

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to give additional help and support to the British film industry.

Mr. Dorrell: The Select Committee on National Heritage is currently conducting an inquiry on the subject and I have undertaken to set out the Government's approach in my response to the Committee's findings.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that British-production films such as "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "Shallow Grave" are excellent? Will he agree to promote the British film industry as much as he can and to try to encourage as many British business men as possible to invest in that worthwhile venture?

Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend on all counts and I look forward to responding to the invitation from Mr. Michael Grade to attend the launch in Britain of "The Madness of King George". My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the flowering of the British film industry which is taking place at present. We must now ensure that we take advantage of the skills and resources available within the British film industry, not merely to promote the development of

British films—although that is important—but to attract to our shores internationally mobile film-making projects. That is why the Government continue to support the British Film Commission and why I was so pleased to be able to tell the Select Committee that last year's expenditure on films made in Britain was higher than in any year since 1980.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that Channel 4's "Film on Four" is now the cornerstone of the British film industry, both by virtue of the budget made available through it and because films shown on that channel are eligible for nomination for Oscars and BAFTA awards? Does he accept that the number of films commissioned from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for "Film on Four" is unacceptably low? Will he give the figures and undertake to do something to ensure that that serious imbalance is corrected?

Mr. Dorrell: I recognise that Channel 4 has played a distinguished role in the resurgence of film making in Britain and I hope that that process will continue. As for assistance to specific forms of film making—whether through Channel 4 or another film-making agency—we shall have to wait until the response Ito the Select Committee report, which I mentioned in my initial answer.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Notwithstanding the considerable success that the British film industry is enjoying—which many of us hope will he reflected in the academy awards ceremony next month, with an Oscar for Mr. Nigel Hawthorne, the former civil servant—does my right hon. Friend agree that the Irish have captured much of the potential market for film making in this country as they have a much more liberal tax regime? Will my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind and go and see for himself what the Irish are doing before he responds to the Select Committee report?

Mr. Dorrell: I will certainly take account of the package of support and the environment available to film makers working in Britain compared with what is available in comparable countries. Before we go overboard in our praise for the Irish film-making regime, I should remind the House that the amount spent on film making in Ireland last year was roughly £100 million while the amount spent on film making in Britain last year was roughly £400 million, so the imbalance is not quite as is sometimes suggested.

Mr. Maclennan: In recognising the distinguished role of Channel 4 in film making, would not the Secretary of State do well to listen to the channel's chairman, Sir Michael Bishop, who advocated a change in the funding formula, which currently results in about £60 million per year being siphoned away from programme and film making by Channel 4? The right hon. Gentleman should listen particularly to the offers to recompense any companies in the independent sector which have not made the income that they predicted to the Independent Television Commission in 1991.

Mr. Dorrell: What the hon. Member describes as siphoning off money is a payment by Channel 4 to the Channel 3 licensees—the people who took the risk associated with Channel 4.
The management of Channel 4 has cause to celebrate the fact that that risk has proved a triumphant success. However, I do not believe that it is a reason to rewrite the agreement that binds Channel 3 and Channel 4 under terms that were known to both when the licences were granted.

Football Players

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent meetings he has had with officers of the Football Association to discuss the behaviour of football players during matches.

Mr. Sproat: I have regular meetings with the various footballing bodies and I have made my concerns about the behaviour of football players clear. Responsibility, however, rests with the Football Association, which has firm disciplinary procedures to deal with player misconduct.

Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's reply, but, sadly, we see more and more pretty despicable behaviour by players during football matches. If we condemn so-called football supporters for their deplorable behaviour, we must be equally tough on footballers. Will the Minister assure the House that he will continue to press the appropriate football authorities about the need to get really tough with players who bring this great game into disrepute?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Football Association's response to the incident involving Mr. Cantona—whereby it doubled the fine imposed and greatly lengthened the amount of time that he will be out of football—showed that it is prepared to act in a way that the hon. Gentleman and I would like.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. At a future meeting with officers of the Football Association, will he make it quite clear that professional footballers have a duty to set a much better example in terms of their behaviour both on and off the pitch to the youth of this country?

Mr. Sproat: Professional footballers—indeed, professional and amateur players of all sports—have a tremendous duty to provide proper role models for young people, and I think that the overwhelming number of them do so.

National Lottery

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the timing of distribution of national lottery funds for good causes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: I have received a number of representations from members of the public and others expressing a variety of views.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he bear it in mind that the historic success of the national lottery—which has so captured the public's imagination and is an enormous credit to the bravery of those in the Government who decided to push ahead with it in the face of much carping and

unfair criticism from the Opposition—must be reinforced by ensuring that the funds raised are distributed in a timely manner and to good causes?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I assure him that arrangements are proceeding to ensure that the distributer bodies make the first announcements of lottery distribution decisions within the next few weeks. As my hon. Friend said, I am confident that they will reflect a major step forward in funding not only sport, the arts and heritage but, ultimately, through the millennium fund and the charities board, those activities that will result from the decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to introduce the lottery.

Mr. Olner: What has happened to the lottery moneys that are waiting to be distributed to those bodies? How transparent are Camelot's accounting procedures? What is happening to the interest that is accruing on the millions of pounds that are still waiting to be distributed?

Mr. Dorrell: Each week Camelot pays the amount available for good causes into the national loans distribution fund, where it is invested in public sector instruments and collects interest which accrues to the benefit of the distribution fund. So far, that interest amounts to more than £1 million.

Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the projection for the sums available for good causes is substantially larger than originally forecast and, if so, should we not all take credit for what is a brilliant national achievement?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the amounts being raised by the lottery week after week are substantially greater than the estimates that were offered when the legislation was introduced. They are also higher than the more ambitious figures that were published around the time when the licence was granted. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the lottery is a substantial success which has unlocked a new source of funding for various good causes that could not reasonably be anticipated to come from any other source.

Royal Naval College

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure the future maintenance of the buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college at Greenwich.

Mr. Sproat: My Department is currently responsible for maintaining these important historic buildings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will ensure that there is a suitable occupant to secure their future. Proposals, including one from an organisation outside the Ministry of Defence, are being evaluated by my right hon. and learned Friend, in consultation with my Department.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister ensure that his Department does rather better with buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college than it has in respect of the adjacent building, the Dreadnought seamen's hospital, which has been empty for almost nine years and the condition of which, despite it being a historic building, is deteriorating badly? It is costing


the taxpayer an enormous amount to maintain. Will the Minister ensure that a similar fate does not befall the historic buildings occupied by the Naval college?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will do everything that I can in respect of the Royal Naval college. As to the Dreadnought hospital, I will look at the papers again after this Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Sentencing

Dr. Spink: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases he has referred to the Court of Appeal for review of an apparently over-lenient sentence.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 1989, 181 cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and 11 in Northern Ireland; 19 were subsequently withdrawn. Of the 166 cases heard to date, 136—or 82 per cent.—resulted in an increased sentence.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me and the whole House in expressing condolences to the family of Tony Martin, a 17-year-old who died in my constituency? In the words of the judge, a knife was opened and plunged into the boy's body. Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the sense of great outrage in the community that I represent because a six-year sentence only was passed on the 31-year-old man, Mr. Osborne, who committed that crime? Although I entirely understand—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a serious issue, but this seems to be a constituency matter on which representations should be made in writing, or should be the subject of an Adjournment debate. In Question Time, questions must be brief and the Minister concerned must be fully aware of all the circumstances.

Dr. Spink: I was coming to the point, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate your help.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that severe and harsh deterrent sentences should be passed, to prevent people from going armed with knives and other weapons to places of entertainment, where they put our constituents at unacceptable risk?

The Attorney-General: The whole House will have the deepest sympathy for the family of the victim in that tragic case. The sentence imposed by the learned judge depended on the facts as found by the jury. It found proved a case of manslaughter, but found the defendant not guilty of murder. In those circumstances, there can be no doubt that the sentence imposed was well within the range available to the learned judge.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General think that his powers to appeal against sentences should be extended to those imposed by magistrates?

The Attorney-General: No. That jurisdiction must he exercised with great care, with individual attention being given to each case. If one extended it to the just

over 1 million cases dealt with by magistrates courts each year, it would not he possible to apply the detailed care and consideration that the jurisdiction requires.

Leon Patterson

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the death of Leon Patterson in Stockport police station; and what discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on this matter.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Attorney-General received a report on the death of Leon Patterson from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Following an investigation by Greater Manchester police, the headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service carefully considered all the facts and decided that the evidence did not provide a realistic prospect of convicting any person of any criminal offence against the deceased.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Solicitor-General realise that that is an appalling response to a terrible tragedy? It is nearly two years since the inquest on Leon Patterson returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Eventually, an investigation was mounted by Greater Manchester police, who apparently claimed that they could not find the culprits responsible, even though Mr. Patterson died in a police station and there was a verdict of unlawful death.
Does not the Minister think that it is time to reopen this case and ensure that those who are guilty of the death of Leon Patterson are brought to justice? My constituent's family have suffered grievously since his death, and I believe that justice should he done and be seen to be done in this case.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman omitted a very important statement of fact from his recitation. The coroner's verdict of unlawful killing was quashed by the High Court on 25 October 1994. The divisional court ordered a re-hearing, and all these matters, which have given rise to understandable anguish among the family and the community, can be ventilated at that coroner's inquest.
The hon. Gentleman may agree that it is greatly in the interests of the family of the deceased, the doctors who attended and the police that there should be no rush to judgment before this full and further inquest has been held.

Victims' Families

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the families of victims are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service during the prosecution process.

The Attorney-General: When taking a decision to prosecute, the interests of the victim and his or her family are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is of paramount importance that the Crown Prosecution Service keep in close contact with the families of victims at each stage of a prosecution? Does he further


agree that that is particularly important when a case is not brought to court, so that the families may understand the precise reasons why?

The Attorney-General: Yes, my hon. Friend makes two good points. It is very important that both the CPS and the police, who are often the main point of contact, keep in touch with the victim on all sorts of matters in relation to a crime and potential prosecution—bail, compensation, dates of hearing and progress of the case. In particular, as my hon. Friend says, this is most important where it has been decided not to prosecute, so that that decision can be properly explained to the victim or the family.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We welcome the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions will now record the views of victims for bail purposes, but will the Attorney-General go further and allow the trial judge—who, after all, is aware of relations between the victim and the accused—to direct, in cases of sexual offences and of violence, that the victim and family be informed before the accused or convicted person is released on parole or on licence? Indeed, in cases of violence and of sexual offences, perhaps the trial judge should even direct where the convicted person should go on home leave.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman raises important questions, but they are, as he realises, matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I quite agree with him about the importance of keeping victims in touch, especially when a dangerous convicted person is likely to return to a neighbourhood.

Mr. Beith: Is the Attorney-General aware that the anguish of a victim's family is particularly acute during the court proceedings, when they may be treated by court officials merely as witnesses? They need to be kept informed of progress, and perhaps to be taken aside and informed of important developments in the case or its outcome. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman feed the experience of his Department into that of the Home Office when considering this aspect?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It can be very muddling for family members who go to court, and it is important that prosecutors and police try to find time to explain to the family of the victim, or to the victim himself, what stage a case has reached. The same applies to court staff.

Lenient Sentencing

Mr. Spring: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on trends on appeals against lenient sentencing.

The Solicitor-General: As the Attorney-General's power of review has become more widely recognised, the number of sentences that he has been asked to consider has increased.

Mr. Spring: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the power to refer unduly lenient sentences

to the Court of Appeal has begun to impact on sentences in the first instance? As that matches the public mood, it is greatly to be welcomed.

The Solicitor-General: I can indeed confirm that. In the past 12 months or so we have referred about 12 cases arising out of deaths on the road. The Lord Chief Justice has taken the opportunity in those cases not only to increase the sentence but to update the guidelines in Boswell to take account of the decision taken in the House to increase the maximum sentence from five years to 10 years. As a result of these decisions, general sentencing for causing death on the road has increased nationwide.

Racial Attacks

Ms Abbott: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the head of the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss racial attacks.

The Attorney-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly. Cases with a racial element are discussed as and when they arise.

Ms Abbott: Is the Attorney-General aware of the concern in the black and Asian communities about the failure to bring people to book for a number of notorious racist killings and attacks in recent months?

The Attorney-General: Yes, I am aware of the concerns raised by the hon. Lady. I am aware too of the specific concerns that she and two of her hon. Friends have raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service takes any case with a racial element especially seriously. I urge the hon. Lady to accept the invitation given to her by the director and the chief Crown prosecutor for London to visit the chief prosecutor to discuss these cases with him so that she may understand fully the lengths and efforts that have been gone to and the background to the cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Kenya

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been allocated for this year to help the Government of Kenya with the problems caused by street children in that country; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have allocated £150,000 for a shelter, education and feeding programme run by the International Child Care Trust in Kitale, £30,000 of which has been allocated for this year.

Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's reply, but is he aware that the problems are on-going in Kenya? Does he accept that there is no more depressing sight than to see young street children roaming without any stability in their lives? Is he further aware that many people—not necessarily within organisations, but members of the general public—seek to help these


children? They need advice, however, and resources. Will the Minister seek to pursue the matter via the Kenyan Government and to offer them resources?

Mr. Baldry: The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about street children in Kenya and elsewhere. We have a substantial aid programme in Kenya; we donate £31 million of bilateral aid to Kenya. The purpose of our aid programme in Kenya is to reduce poverty and to promote economic growth. We think that that is the most effective way to tackle the underlying causes that make the life of street children so desperate. When we are discussing the forward aid programme with the Kenyan Government, we shall certainly discuss what further initiatives might be taken to tackle the problems of street children.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the funds that have been made available for dealing with the problems of street children in Kenya. I recommend that he bears in mind the successful work that has been done in Brazil with street children following the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the home concerned in Rio de Janeiro. Should we not be learning the lessons of that work—that providing a stable and secure home for youngsters, along with education and training, will enable them to go on and make successful lives for themselves?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that, sadly, the problem of street children extends worldwide. He is correct to say that 18 months ago our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched an initiative for street children in support of a consortium of non-governmental organisations working on behalf of street children in developing countries. I am glad to say that we are providing financial support over a five-year period to carry forward this important work. We are working to tackle the problem of street children worldwide.

South Africa

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional funding has been made available to South Africa for educational purposes since April 1994.

Mr. Baldry: We have agreed new education projects and bursaries for tertiary education in South Africa at a total cost of more than £3.3 million since April 1994. Total expenditure on education and training projects in South Africa is expected to exceed £6 million in this financial year.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give the undertaking that at the United Nations social summit next week the British Government will commit themselves to allocating 20 per cent. of their aid to basic needs, including education? If they did that, would not they be able massively to increase basic education in South Africa?

Mr. Baldry: We have a very substantial bilateral aid programme for South Africa. We are giving £60 million of bilateral aid to South Africa, of which education and training activities account for about 40 per cent. Our

commitment to assisting the improvement of education and educational development in South Africa is there for the whole world to see.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while South Africa may be suffering from a crisis of rising expectations, its political and economic changes will succeed only if it creates the circumstances in which overseas private investors are encouraged to invest?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, trade and investment is crucial to South Africa. We are the largest foreign investor in South Africa. Indeed, during a visit to South Africa last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a new ODA-backed scheme to encourage further UK investment in smaller businesses. Circumstances that attract investment to South Africa are fundamental to the country's future.

Pergau Dam

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he is able to announce in respect of funds from the Overseas Development Administration budget reallocated from the Pergau dam project.

Mr. Baldry: We are using the reallocated amounts this year for additional emergency aid, primarily in Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnya, for additional contributions to multilateral organisations in health and population, and for additional country programme spending, including mine clearance in Cambodia.

Mr. Watson: That will clearly be welcomed by all the various organisations that will benefit from the projects to which the Minister referred. In debates in the House following the courts' finding that the Government had acted illegally in their funding of the Pergau dam project, the Government undertook to provide funding in the next two financial years, but not beyond that. Will the Minister commit the Government to going that bit further and confirm that mistakes made with respect to the Pergau dam refer to more than just the next two years and, for the first time on behalf of anyone in the Government, will he apologise for what happened?

Mr. Baldry: We have debated this matter at considerable length in the House. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was present for a debate the other day on Pergau. The settlement, under which an extra £65 million has been made available to the aid budget over a two-year period, is seen by most reasonable people in this country as fair and to be commended. The fact that so much money this year is now being spent on additional programmes in Malawi, on mine clearance in Cambodia and on relief in Chechnya, Rwanda and elsewhere, is also widely welcomed. The whole House generally sees that settlement as fair.

Mr. Dover: Will the Minister try to ensure that as much aid as possible is bilateral, so that British goods may be exported as part of the deal?

Mr. Baldry: Yes, we have a substantial aid programme in this country: some £2.2 billion. We want


to ensure that we have a robust, bilateral British aid programme, under which, wherever possible, we use UK know-how and goods.

Miss Lestor: To add to the confusion over the Pergau dam, which I think the Minister will find will not go away, may I say that earlier this month the Minister for Overseas Development shocked Europe and dismayed the developing world when she announced the Government's intention to slash their contribution to Lome by 30 per cent.? If the Government really intend to cut that contribution—I hope that they will change their mind—to concentrate on the British bilateral aid programme, what additional aid programmes does the ODA plan to fund with the unexpected windfall, which will result unless he is prepared to change his mind?

Mr. Baldry: The facts are straightforward. The United Kingdom bilateral aid programme worldwide is widely recognised as being of high quality. However, multilateral aid is now growing to unacceptable levels; it will be 60 per cent. of total aid in three years' time. Our EC aid alone will be more than 40 per cent. That will be made at the expense of the British bilateral programme unless we can achieve a better balance—hence our offer to EDF VIII. However, our contribution to EDF will still be substantial. Our aim is to set the right size for the UK contribution, one that reflects the means at our disposal, our aid priorities and the need to ensure a robust and sizeable British bilateral aid programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rwanda

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about aid in Rwanda.

Mr. Baldry: Ministers have received a wide range of personal and written representations about aid to Rwanda since the crisis began in April 1994.

Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept the threefold priorities identified by Oxfam and Human Rights Watch: first, that the Rwandan judiciary needs to be strengthened and rebuilt immediately to deal with the thousands of prisoners awaiting trial; secondly, that the international tribunal should be set up immediately to prosecute the ringleaders of the genocide in Rwanda; and, thirdly, that the civil administration should be rebuilt to deal with the problems of refugees returning to their homes? What particular and practical help can the Government give to achieve those priorities?

Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were co-sponsors of the resolution that set up the international criminal tribunal. We are donating £200,000 worth of personnel and equipment to that tribunal. Our support for Rwanda is on-going. When the Prime Minister of Rwanda was here last week, we committed a further £500,000 for security in the refugee camps. Only today, we have announced a further commitment of £3.2 million of food aid for use both inside and outside Rwanda. United Nations Zairean monitors are now protecting convoys. We are now beginning to see people moving back into Rwanda. Real progress is being made in resettlement and in ensuring that the international war crimes tribunal starts its work effectively.

Barings

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the insolvency of the merchant bank Barings. The Bank of England announced late last night, ahead of the opening of the far east financial markets, that Barings was unable to continue trading and was applying for administration.
Barings' problems have arisen from major losses caused by unauthorised dealings by the chief trader in its Singapore incorporated subsidiary. The losses arise from contracts on the Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo exchanges. At the close of business last week, total losses appear to have been in excess of £600 million. Crucially, those contracts have further to run, exposing Barings to further unquantifiable losses. As a result, Barings was unable to continue to trade without the injection of substantial new capital.
As the Bank of England announced last night, the British banks were prepared to supply all the capital needed to recapitalise Barings, but only if it were possible to cap the potential liability of the outstanding contracts. In the event, that did not prove possible. Other parties were not prepared to take on open-ended and therefore unlimited liabilities. The Governor did not recommend, and in any event, I would not have agreed, that public funds should take on those liabilities. Regrettably, in the circumstances, there was no alternative to Barings having to apply for administration.
Although it was not possible at the end of the day to recapitalise Barings, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Governor and his staff and the London financial community for their commitment, which I followed closely over the weekend, to the search for a solution.
I stress to the House that these circumstances are unique to Barings and should not apply to other banks operating in London. The Bank of England is ready to provide liquidity to the banking system to ensure that it continues to function normally. Deposits at Barings are, of course, at the moment frozen, and the extent of any losses on them will not become clear for some time. The Deposit Protection Board will be writing to all Barings' depositors who are potentially eligible for assistance.
The House will be rightly concerned about how such huge unauthorised exposures could be allowed to happen and build up so quickly without the knowledge of the company, the exchanges or the regulators. I am determined to address that question rigorously and to review the regulatory system thoroughly in the light of this collapse. However, before we come to any firm conclusions, it will be necessary to establish in detail the facts of the case. Those were transactions conducted on the far side of the world by overseas subsidiaries on overseas exchanges. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the Opposition's knowledge of geography at least would have enabled them to agree with that statement.
There may be some falsification of the relevant records within the subsidiaries concerned. It will therefore take some time to unearth the full and detailed catalogue of events and the methods employed to evade all the required management and regulatory controls.
I have asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of this episode and to report back to me. The investigation will include the circumstances in which such unauthorised transactions were able to take place and to remain undetected until too late. The board will need to work closely both with Barings and with the Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo exchanges. The House will recall that the Board of Banking Supervision is chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England and comprises six independent members and three members appointed ex officio from the Bank.
I can assure the House that I am determined that, when the full facts are known, all the appropriate lessons will be drawn and any necessary corrective steps will be taken.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Government said that after Johnson Matthey.

Mr. Clarke: That is when we set up the Board of Banking Supervision, as the hon. Gentleman will recall.
In today's global markets, the regulatory tasks are international and they must be tackled internationally. Over the past two years, with other Finance Ministers in the G7, the G10 and the International Monetary Fund, I have taken part in several discussions on the need to ensure effective regulation of international dealings in derivatives and other instruments in high-technology 24-hour trading conditions. The problems are obvious, but practicable solutions are less self-evident. No system of regulation can ever guarantee total security. There is always the chance of unwise or fraudulent dealing by one or a group of individuals. The better a bank's systems and controls, the less likely that is to happen. Every regulatory authority and every bank must now be considering what further steps it can take to protect itself against such risk.
I shall report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on our analysis of this case, the lessons to be drawn, and any proposals to strengthen security in highly complex financial markets. I would expect to publish the full report of the Board of Banking Supervision subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.
Meanwhile, we must also be concerned about the implications of the matter for the employees of what was, until a few days ago, a successful and highly respected firm. The administrator will no doubt take early steps to clarify the position of the 4,000 or so employees, some of whom will be needed to administer the assets of the business, and many of whom work for successful and profitable businesses for which purchasers will no doubt be found. Some redundancies will be inevitable, but the employees in this country will of course be able to rely on a measure of statutory protection in the event of their employer being so insolvent that difficulties arise in the payment of salaries and redundancy payments.
This failure is, of course, a blow to the City of London. But it appears to be a specific incident unique to Barings, centred on one rogue trader in Singapore. Inevitably, there has been some turbulence in the markets since the announcement, but global markets should be quite strong enough to absorb it without lasting damage, since the events have not changed any of the fundamentals that underlie foreign exchange, equity and bond markets.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I thank the Chancellor for making his statement, and for accepting the need for an inquiry and for the report of that inquiry


to be published. May I ask him to tell us in more detail what action is being taken to save as many of Barings' businesses, and as many of its 2,000 United Kingdom and 2,000 overseas jobs, as possible? Will he assure us that he and the Bank of England will continue those efforts?
As for the immediate event, will the Chancellor tell us the extent to which depositors are protected so that they do not fall victim to other people's mistakes? Will he tell us the total scale of the losses involved? Will he confirm that the inquiry will examine why there appear to have been warning signals in the far east as many as 10 days ago, which were apparently not acted on?
Does the Chancellor agree that the public will also want to know in some detail from the inquiry why a single trader operating from one desk in Singapore could not just lose £500 million last week and another £200 million last night, but—unknown to his superiors, and without the knowledge of his company—enter into between 15,000 and 40,000 contracts, threatening losses that are still open ended?
The Chancellor said in his statement that the issue was simply the evasion of existing managerial and regulatory controls by a rogue trader—controls that were already in existence. Does he accept, however, that the inquiry must examine whether there were sufficient regulatory and managerial controls in the first place? Will he assure us that the inquiry will examine what the internal control systems at Barings were, why they failed to detect the huge operations of just one trader before it was too late, and what supervisory requirements were imposed on Barings and the other banks by the Bank of England to ensure the existence of adequate controls to detect excessive exposure on a daily basis? The Bank of England, as a supervisory organisation in the United Kingdom, should be the first to find out, rather than just about the last to be told. What changes does the Bank now propose to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to minimise this type of risk?
We join the Chancellor in praising the Bank of England for its efforts over the weekend. Will he, however, continue to agree with the Governor of the Bank of England, whose considered views we examined last summer? He felt that there was no need to worry about the derivatives market, and commented that American legislators were wrong to become
excited at the need for regulation".
Of Barings and others in the derivatives market, he said:
These people know what they are doing whether it's at director level or the chaps on the desk.
Of the Bank of England's role, he said:
We now have an expert team monitoring derivatives. getting better every time".
All that, he said, was "reassuring".
In the light of what I consider to be a culture of complacency, is not a fully independent inquiry necessary, rather than simply a Board of Banking Supervision inquiry chaired by the Governor, so that—among other things—the actions of the Bank of England and regulatory authorities can be examined objectively? Is not it also clear that an analysis of not just the events of the past few days but the wider policy implications involved will be necessary in the inquiry?
Given the calls from the Bank of International Settlements, the proposals of the G30 think tank, the requirements of the United States Congress general accounting officer and the call by the Basle committee and other international organisations for much greater transparency, tighter codes of practice, consistent adequacy standards for derivatives dealers and daily accurate risk evaluations by banks, along with the identification by them of concentrations of risk—and given the concern expressed by the Securities and Investments Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission about the need for greater co-ordination among the international regulators—does the Chancellor agree not only that the inquiry should examine those issues, but that he should explain why until now he has refused to act on the recommendations that have been made?
While we recognise that no system can be foolproof, do not the weekend's events demonstrate the clear public interest in better supervision, stronger safeguards and more adequate investor protection, both in the United Kingdom and through international co-operation, so that we can maintain confidence in the integrity of the financial system?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman rightly asked what action was being taken today to examine the interests of both employees and depositors involved with the bank. I assure him and the House that a great deal of work is going on today. The administrator has moved in, and continued inquiries are being made to discover how many depositors are affected, to identify them and to see what can be done to protect them and also to prepare for the management of assets and the disposal of profitable parts of the business in order to restore the position to some stability. A great many people are working on that at this moment. I am updated at regular intervals, but it is a rapidly moving scene.
As for depositors, their deposits are frozen at the moment while work is done to discover to what extent losses will lead to less than a full pound in the pound eventually being distributed. That may take some time. Eventually, we shall no doubt discover the extent of any losses incurred by the depositors. Such money as remains, which may be a substantial proportion of the full amount, will be distributed.
As far as we are aware, although I do not yet know, the bank did not have small retail depositors in any great numbers. The depositors tend to be other banks and institutions. So far, we have not discovered any other bank or institution that is subject to dangerous exposure, given that in any event the assets are frozen, but not necessarily lost. They are almost certainly not totally lost.
I said in my statement that by the end of last week more than £600 million of losses had been incurred. The extent to which the losses continue to build up has yet to he finalised. It depends on the closing of the contracts in Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo. That will become clear in the next few days. Obviously, no further liabilities could possibly be financed by Barings.
I have heard the rumours about warning signals from the far east. I think that they are rather wise after the event. Of course, we still do not have the complete picture of what was going on in the dealings conducted by the trader in Singapore, but the positions that he took, which exposed the bank so fatally, were taken in the


comparatively recent past. They built up in the end in a matter of days. So people who claim that there were warnings of those positions some time in advance exaggerate the situation.
The whole point of what I have said is that, of course it is necessary to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman asked. How could activities centred on this one man in Singapore allow such heavy liabilities to build up so quickly to the destruction of the total bank? That is what will be investigated. It will be investigated by the Board of Banking Supervision, because that body was set up in the aftermath of the Johnson Matthey scandal precisely to exercise supervision of the Bank of England's supervisory role and to audit its performance. It is plainly the right body not only to take part in the investigation of the facts of the incident, but to produce a proper analysis and make recommendations, which I shall implement.
The difficulty in this case may well not be the controls and regulatory systems, or even the internal control systems of Barings. We do not yet know. We shall act if we discover that they played a significant part. The fact is that there was undoubtedly falsification of records inside the bank. The controls in place within the bank were avoided. Hence the regulatory controls of the Bank of England were avoided again. It is essential that we first discover the facts of the case, then we can consider whether changes in the regulatory laws could have touched this case or any case in which such fisk might occur in other ways. That is by far the most sensible way of proceeding.
Wild talk of derivatives can also mislead people. It is certainly the case that derivatives are a new and in some ways dangerous development in the financial market, but such problems could have occurred in cash markets, futures and options. It is undoubtedly easier and quicker for them to arise now that we have derivatives. We must discover whether the problems in derivatives were at the heart of the problem.
We have not failed to act on any of the reports that have been produced by the Basle Group of Bankers, the G10 central bank governors and the like. Many of them deal with data and supervision. A great deal of analysis of those problems is taking place. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to give a great list of bodies as if he had some authoritative knowledge of proposals made around the world and to claim that we have failed to act on them. No regulatory body has made proposals on which we have failed to act.
I very much hope that the lessons that we learn from this case, involving the activities in Barings' Singapore subsidiary, will enable us and other regulatory authorities to take steps forward in the international control of risks in that area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: After that initial exchange, I appeal to Back Benchers on both sides of the House to put their questions quickly and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond briskly, so that I may call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Whatever the lessons of this bitter affair, will my right hon. and learned Friend be ever mindful of the fact that the pre-eminent position of the City of London derives from its skilful acceptance and management of

risk and that if there were excessive regulation to remove risk, along the lines that the shadow Chancellor hinted at, the principal casualty would be the strategic salience of the City of London?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The City of London's reputation is paramount. It was impressive to see the British banks, as well as the Bank of England, mobilise this weekend to provide the necessary capital for Barings to keep going. In fact, an international effort was mobilised, involving overseas banks as well, because most of the major international banks are present in the City of London and have excellent contacts with the Bank of England. Of course, no one could take on those open-ended commitments, which might continue to pile up under the contracts. It is certainly absolutely essential that we protect the reputation of the City by proper regulation. I completely agree that to rush instantly into some wodge of further regulations before we even know where the fault lies in sufficient detail in this case, could lead to our imposing endless constraints on what is the most successful financial market in the world.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor nevertheless accept that this is a black Monday for the City of London and that the implications are not as confined as he suggested? The fact that one trader in Singapore could achieve that scale of loss makes the situation worse and not better, as he tried to imply in his statement. Will he consider the announcement today of a £550 million plunge in the trading profits of the Midland bank as an indication that such gambling is not confined to banks of the character of Barings, but also takes place in the main clearing banks? What guarantee can he give that the Barings bank collapse today will not become a clearing bank catastrophe tomorrow?

Mr. Clarke: It is important to realise that it is likely to turn out that what happened to Barings could have happened to a German, Swiss, French or American bank, if someone trading in derivatives falsified records and evaded the regulatory controls that the bank or the regulator had put in place. We shall have to wait to find out if that is the case. With the greatest of respect, it is a mistake to describe all trading of that type, in such things as derivatives, as pure gambling. There is a need for sophisticated financial instruments that can he used for hedging. They can be used in circumstances in which risk is minimal. It is a difficult and sophisticated world and it needs proper regulation and proper internal processes in banks. We need to discover what went wrong in this case. I do not deny that for one man to be at the centre of something that destroyed a whole bank is a very serious problem, which is why we anxiously await the report of the Board of Banking Supervision, to find out what can be done to reduce the risk of that recurring.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a fundamental difference between futures markets in agricultural products, base metals and oil and a futures market that seeks to guess at the movements of stock exchange indices? That latter form of futures market is so speculative as to deserve the term "gambling" and should perhaps be banned by international law.

Mr. Clarke: All derivatives have to be based on some market—in this case, they were based on dealings in a combination of things, including the Nikkei-Dow average,


Japanese Government bonds, Japanese short-term interest rates and futures. Most banks engage in some trading of that kind, including the major institutions. There can be occasions when it is necessary for hedging purposes of one type or another. As my hon. Friend says, we have to ensure that the regulations stop pure gambling or taking positions of a highly speculative and impossibly risky type, but that we nevertheless do not overregulate to destroy legitimate financial activity on behalf of clients. I shall bear my hon. Friend's strictures in mind and no doubt the Board of Banking Supervision will come back with some opinions on that type of trading.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement will be seen as complacent? The problem is not unique—we have had Maxwell; Lloyd's; the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; Asil Nadir; and a man who made ․1 billion when the British pound fell out of the ERM. This is gambling and speculation, and it characterises the world financial community. Those people create no wealth, yet they play a dominant role in the world economy. To try to pin the responsibility on one man who apparently had the capacity to bring down a whole bank is to miss the point that the global economy is unstable and not run in the interests of those who create the world's wealth.

Mr. Clarke: The financial services industry in this country is a great creator of wealth and employment. Invisibles account for some 15 or 16 per cent. of our gross domestic product. In the modern world, the fact that Britain is so successful in the financial services industry is one of the strengths of our economy, not one of its weaknesses. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is impossible totally to eliminate fraud or incompetence in any system of trade, manufacture or commerce, but we have tight regulatory controls to try to minimise the risk. With respect, I advise the right hon. Gentleman, before reacting so predictably, to wait for more light to be thrown on the facts of this case and to see precisely what that trader and anyone in collusion with him were doing in Singapore. It would be absurd, on the back of all that, to sweep away every part of the financial services industry and the investment in industry at home and abroad that the British financial services industry provides.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his measured and timely response to these events has been entirely appropriate? Conservative Members believe that he has approached the matter in the right way and that the Governor of the Bank of England is also to be congratulated on his response. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look carefully, however, at the aspect of fraud that may be involved? What jurisdiction, if any, would be relevant to deal with a possible conspiracy to defraud within Singapore?

Mr. Clarke: We do not know whether there has been fraud. The trader has not yet been found. When he is discovered, we must first see whether there was an element of fraud and to what extent he colluded with other people inside the bank or the Singapore stock exchange, or whether it was simply a case of misguided and panicky trading, which was concealed from his employers. I do not want to speculate on the facts as that would be not

only unfair to the individual concerned, but totally reckless until someone has done much more work to discover the actual sequence of events. In the event of criminal charges being brought, I assume that problems will arise as to which jurisdiction they will be in. I think that, in the first instance, they will be in the Singapore jurisdiction, but the problem of jurisdiction for financial crimes is not always that straightforward and one would need to take a more considered view.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Chancellor aware that most supervisors, regulators and managers of banks do not have the knowledge of mathematics needed to understand the technicalities of derivatives markets? Will he appoint an expert and experienced committee with knowledge of the moral hazards involved to advise both him and the City on how to proceed in order to restore public confidence in the banking system?

Mr. Clarke: It is the responsibility of each bank and financial institution to ensure that it is properly informed about the exposure of its institution to whatever dealings in derivatives are taking place inside the organisation. I have no doubt that experiences such as this, and that of Orange County in the United States, are making every responsible chairman, chief executive and board of financial institutions throughout the world ensure that they are properly informed about their exposure in that area at any given moment. Numerous expert committees are looking at the evolution of the market in the light of the development of the derivatives market. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, only today the G 10 central bank governors published a further report on the quality of the data and statistics required to give national regulators a better overall picture of what is happening in today's financial world.
Although they are extremely complicated and can be extremely risky investment in the hands of the less sophisticated, I. do not think that we should invest derivatives with this air of awe, as if they represented some new, magic and unintelligible form of investment compared with other forms. It is a question of making sure that our technology, management controls inside banks and national regulatory systems can keep abreast of continual developments.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that financial futures, properly used, are a means of reducing risk for corporate entities and banks? Does he further agree that regulation of the financial futures markets in London is already close and effective? Does he accept that before we rush in with new regulations, we need to make certain whether the losses that Barings sustained were not caused by abuse of the existing regulations and flouting the existing internal controls in the bank?

Mr. Clarke: I agree. The reason why the futures markets, such as the highly successful London International Financial Futures Exchange—LIFFE—have developed so rapidly is that they fulfil a real financial need. They enable some of those participating in the market—not all of them—to hedge themselves against risk that they might otherwise face. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, first, we must discover to what extent this case depended on any deliberate


evasion of controls and systems that otherwise would have protected anyone against the disastrous risk that unfolded in this case.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Chancellor call a spade a spade? Derivatives and gambling on derivatives are based upon, in this case, betting on the Japanese stock exchange in another 12 months' time. What wealth creation is there in that? Why does not the Chancellor admit that this case has come about partly as a result of the total deregulation in the exchange markets and the rest of them, which the Government have supported? They have learnt no lessons whatever from Johnson Matthey. One of the top elite banks is going under because someone gambled and gambled, just like someone in a betting shop—one bet after another, trying to recoup his losses, when all those jobs were at stake. You cannot run a country with a betting shop mentality.

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) just said, people can invest in futures markets precisely to protect their firm and their jobs against movements in markets, which might otherwise jeopardise the business and the trade in which they are engaged.
One never listens to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) without sensing the warming touch of nostalgia about him. The hon. Gentleman belongs to that section of the Labour party that has always regarded all investment—the stock exchange and the process of capitalism and free markets—as gambling of which it disapproves. He knows no more about derivatives and he understands derivatives as little as he understands the rest of the process of financial markets in a free market economy. I do not think that his advice should be heeded in this case.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is a fundamental principle of English and, I believe, Singaporean law that a principal is not responsible for the unauthorised acts of its agents, and in some cases, employees? I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the acts were unauthorised dealings, so could he explain that inconsistency?

Mr. Clarke: I do not want to engage in a legal argument with my hon. Friend about whether an agent is acting within the apparent scope of his authority and so on, but there is no doubt that Barings is liable for the losses on the contracts. Those contracts were engaged upon as Barings' contracts or contracts of a subsidiary, and the group—certainly the subsidiary—has been left exposed to open-ended risks, which cannot be covered. When I say "unauthorised", I mean that we must discover how far the person, or people responsible, was evading the internal controls of the bank and exceeding or avoiding the restraints that the bank would otherwise have put upon him.
We must also consider the extent to which the Bank of England's regulatory requirements and investigations of Barings were being avoided. Although I use the word "unauthorised", I regret to say that I do not believe that there is any question but that Barings remains legally liable for the losses that are still piling up on those contracts, if they have not already been closed.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Chancellor accept that one does not need to be an expert on financial markets to be worried

that thousands of British jobs and a major British company can be put at risk by an individual gambling on the movements of the Japanese stock exchange? If that transpires to have been the consequence of regulatory failure, and as the bank itself is the regulator, is not it true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, that there must be an objective consideration of what went on surrounding the collapse of Barings?
If it proves, as some of the press comment implies, that it is not possible properly to regulate speculation in those financial instruments offshore, perhaps, as other hon. Members have said, that type of activity should be banned altogether.

Mr. Clarke: I share the hon. Lady's concern for the people who work for Barings, including over 2,000 employees who work in this country. They worked for one of the most successful and respected banking groups in the City, and they turned in an extremely good performance. It is wrong to say that they were gamblers or that they were engaged in any improper activity; they were among the best in the financial services world in this country. I trust that the successful parts of the Barings Group will rapidly be sold by the administrator to people who will take on those successful businesses.
We need to discover the way in which operations in one subsidiary have brought the whole group to a state of financial collapse. There are regulators in both countries. One cannot ban international financial dealings; financial markets are moving on to a global basis extremely rapidly. It happens that the country at the other end, Singapore, is one of the most effectively regulated countries in the world. The Monetary Authority of Singapore is also highly regarded as a rather strict and severe regulatory authority, with which the Bank of England happens to be on very good terms.
The conclusion is that something happened in Barings' Singapore subsidiary that evaded the Bank of England's regulatory controls, evaded, through the counterparties, the Monetary Authority of Singapore's controls and evaded whatever controls were being applied by Barings. That is why we are all agreed that 2,500 jobs are at risk; we hope that soon that will all be resolved. We need to know the facts about the way in which it happened, instead of making broad-brush statements about gambling, the financial world, international dealing and so on.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers all that, will he bear in mind the fact that, in the past year, the financial services of the City earned a £16 billion surplus in export trade for this country, so the fact that they do not produce anything goes by the by on that basis? Will he also consider the fact that industry here and abroad relies on access to capital, which is what that is all about, so by retaining a light touch and being very careful about what he does regarding future regulation, my right hon. and learned Friend serves both the City and industry well?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The management of our investments overseas and the flow that that produces hack to this country is vital, not only to our economy, but to the well-being of pension funds and other institutional investments here, which are of extreme importance to the country.
In that area, as in every other area of commerce, regulation is essential to avoid fraud and mismanagement and to protect the depositor. Excessive regulation is destructive of a successful economy and destructive of jobs. When one investigates a matter of that type, one must get the balance right, so that there is no unnecessary risk, but so that one is not panicked into doing things that will damage the legitimate activities of the City of London.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that Mr. Leeson may well have a very different story to tell from the one that is being peddled in London by people who have an obvious motive to blame him? Is not the truth that it might well be that Mr. Leeson's life is at risk, and that he would do well to consider to whom he should give himself up? Will the Chancellor join me in asking Mr. Leeson to ensure that he gives himself up as soon as possible, and to authorities in which he can place his trust?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman dramatises matters—I hope, excessively. He is right to say that we cannot leap to the conclusion that fraud or criminal offences have been committed, as we have no idea. Mr. Leeson has left his desk, no doubt because he finds it, at the very least, embarrassing to describe his responsibility for a series of investments that have brought down a 250-year-old banking group. His explanation will be interesting when he emerges. I have been cautious about what I have said about the facts. It would be wrong for me to act on the best information that I have at the moment and find, as more and more investigations are done, that the picture becomes clearer. I fear that it appears to be clear that an accurate description of the transactions was not being fed back by those engaged in them in Singapore.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the Chancellor confirm that the previously open-ended contracts are now closed? What priority do the holders of those contracts have compared with depositors and other creditors?

Mr. Clarke: Again, I shall check and give my right hon. Friend the most up-to-date information that I have. My belief, as I stand here, is that the Singapore contracts have been closed. I do not think that the Osaka contracts have been closed, and I do not know what has happened at the Tokyo stock exchange—it has been a moving picture all day. The issue of the various creditors is in the hands of the administrator. The capital of Barings Group has already been absorbed by the losses incurred on those particular contracts. That is why the deposits have been frozen and the depositors will doubtless, in due course, discover to what extent their deposits can be released without deduction or, if with deduction, the extent of that deduction. These are early days, and those are exactly the sort of matters that the administrator is meant to be sorting out.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Does not today's significant fall in the value of the pound as a direct result of what has been described as unauthorised dealing on far eastern stock markets demonstrate the limitations of the concept of national sovereignty when it comes to international money markets?

Mr. Clarke: Other currencies have fallen today—the franc, lira and peseta are not having too good a day. We

live in a system of floating exchange rates, where such things move all the time. The hon. Gentleman's question did not have much bearing on dealings in Japanese futures and is not relevant to today's statement.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Governor of the Bank of England has been able to give an assurance that other banks in the City of London have better and more efficient financial and internal controls? Will he also assure the House that recommendations are being put in place? Can he assure the House that when people deal in the derivatives markets, which operate on a minute-by-minute basis, financial controls are set up that also operate on a minute-by-minute basis? In this instance, there seems to have been an enormous delay between reporting what was going wrong in Singapore and reporting it in London. The information never seems to have got to London in the first place.

Mr. Clarke: The Bank's responsibility is to regulate banks and obtain the information required, but that is not done minute by minute. It would be totally impractical to suggest that the Bank of England could possibly supervise every transaction carried out by every bank. The Bank of England has to ensure that a bank's internal systems are satisfactory, and that any controls on which the Bank of England has insisted are adhered to by the bank that it is supervising. The Bank keeps a regular check on banks' balance sheets and calls for audits of particular aspects of banks' performance about which it is concerned. All those issues must be addressed.
My most up-to-date information on the information coming back is that Barings in London first seemed to become aware of serious problems in Singapore the weekend before last. It sent someone out from London to investigate the position on about Monday of last week. By Wednesday or Thursday of last week, it had become obvious that there was a serious problem. The Bank of England was notified at about noon on Friday and the Treasury was notified during the afternoon. Although that sounds very late, most of the liabilities had piled up in a very short time. Most of the contracts that now give rise to Barings' exposure—as the market moves against the various options taken—were built up in a remarkably short time.

Mr. Peter Shore: When a bank fails, the secondary effects are often the most grievous. In his statement, the Chancellor said that the Bank of England is ready to provide liquidity to the banking system. Does that give some assurance to major depositors with Barings that they will receive help if they are in difficulty?

Mr. Clarke: Inevitably, some turbulence and uncertainty in the markets surrounds a blow of this kind to the financial system, which can give rise to liquidity problems within the banking system as a whole. If such problems arose, the Bank of England would fulfil its function as the central bank and ensure that liquidity problems were overcome and that the London banking system could operate normally. My reference does not relate to the depositors with Barings.

Madam Speaker: We will now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule on a case of "gross discourtesy"—to use his own words—on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, who visited my constituency at the weekend without giving me prior notice of his intention to do so. I understand that the purpose of his visit was to instruct members of the Gravesham branch of the Labour party to vote against clause IV. If he had given me notice of his visit, I could have told him that the people of Gravesham have voted against clause IV in the last four general elections.

Madam Speaker: I have made my views on such matters known on a number of occasions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. My point of order is not really a matter of complaint, but a matter of curiosity.
I have been banned from putting down any more written questions on the subject of Lockerbie. Madam Speaker, will you clarify the conditions under which a Member of Parliament can be told that he should not put down any more questions on the same subject on the ground that it is part of a campaign?
I would not raise a point of order about a trivial or frivolous subject. However, Lockerbie represents the worst mass murder of civilians anywhere in the western world since 1945. As a result, our relations with the Arab world are at stake, British industry is being damaged severely and 5,000 of our fellow countrymen are working at a disadvantage in Libya because of continuing sanctions. They are hardly trivial matters. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask you what the rules are.

Madam Speaker: If the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was trivial, I would not give it a serious answer—although, as he says himself, it is by no means a point of order 
The hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished and successful campaigner and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said and with the way in which he has pursued his campaign. In my view, a legitimate campaign through the means of parliamentary questions is one of the most effective weapons available to a Back Bencher. At the same time, I must uphold the rule that is set out on page 294 of "Erskine May", which prohibits the asking of questions that
are multiplied with slight variations on the same point".
Without such a rule, there is potential for total abuse of the Order Paper. The Table Office will continue to apply that rule sensitively and it will not seek to prevent any Member from pursuing, by reasonable means, a matter about which he or she feels very strongly.
In the case cited by the hon. Gentleman, I have to say—I think that he will agree with me—that the Table Office has bent over backwards to help him. The hon. Gentleman has properly pursued his campaign for more than six years. He recently tabled about 90 questions in two days, which are to be answered next Monday, 6 March. I have to rule that he must await those answers before he proceeds further and before he tables any further questions.
Much will depend on the answers that the hon. Gentleman receives to those questions, but I am sure that, given his ingenuity and the help that the Table Office provides to him and all other hon. Members, he may have further opportunities to ask questions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very satisfied with my response to his comments. We will now proceed.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter, on which I gave a thorough ruling.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
No one can be in any doubt that this Government are at the forefront in the fight against crime. Making this country a safer and more secure place to live is one of our top priorities, and has been since we came to power. But that task is not for Government alone. Our approach to crime prevention has always emphasised the role that all sections of society—individuals, community groups and businesses, as well as public agencies—can play in tackling crime.
Before proceeding to deal with the detail of the Bill, I must comment on the terms of the extraordinary amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition which you, Madam Speaker, have just intimated has been selected. Its terms are wrong, misconceived and inaccurate in almost every particular. The amendment shows a remarkably muddled approach to policy by the Opposition, in that they supported—in fact, passed with acclaim—this important measure when it recently came under careful scrutiny in another place, only to turn on it now with such unselective and ill-informed hostility.
In the other place, the official Opposition spokesman said:
The Government can rest assured that from this side of the House everything will be done to expedite the passage of the Bill".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 552.]
Yet now, for what can only be partisan purposes, Labour seeks to frustrate a Bill that will do a power of good to the dispatch of criminal justice in Scotland.
The amendment suggests that the Bill
is not an acceptable or effective measure to tackle crime … in Scotland".
It states that the fight against crime is under-resourced, and that we are making a major assault on the right to silence and moving towards an adversarial system. That is simply bunkum, and it reflects the apparent cynicism with which Labour approaches the issue.
How can Labour Members sit there and say that we are not tackling crime in Scotland? Of course, not many of them are sitting there. The number of recorded crimes in Scotland has fallen for three successive years—most recently by 8 per cent. in 1993, and by a further 3 per cent. in 1994. Coming as they do after a period when recorded crime was on an upward trend, the figures for recent years are encouraging and an indication of the success of our crime prevention and other policies aimed at tackling crime.
We have committed substantial resources to crime prevention. We have backed the police with substantial extra resources, new technology and almost 1,600 extra officers since 1979, to help in their fight against crime. Almost £5 million extra, after allowing for inflation, is

spent on the police force in Scotland each week than when Labour was in power. That is in stark contrast to the actions of Labour-controlled Strathclyde region, which we have had to cajole for years to bring its police force up to establishment standards.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State concerned also about the squandering of police time? Police witnesses still are kept hanging around sheriff courts such as Linlithgow. Is he aware also of the importance of the streamlining of courts? To take a Lothian example, it would be highly desirable to move the court structure from Linlithgow to Livingston, for reasons that the Minister of State—Lord Fraser of Carmyllie—knows well, because he received a delegation led by Mr. Jim Keegan, on behalf of solicitors, and myself.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to put his finger on a central issue that concerns us and the various committees that we established to review criminal justice procedural systems. I will return to that theme at various points in my speech.
The fight against crime is not one that the criminal justice system alone can win. If we want to divert potential offenders before they begin offending, we must begin the process much earlier. That is why we are tackling crime prevention in schools through the national guidelines, emphasising social responsibility and respect for others. We are taking measures to combat truancy, indiscipline, bullying and vandalism. We believe that if these problems are tackled at an early stage there is a significant possibility that those children will not later turn to more serious offences and start to commit crime.
We are not content, however, to rest on initiatives in schools. We are also very much aware that the problem of offending by young people needs close attention. We are addressing this by new initiatives through the children's hearings and through new community-based development projects to address the problems caused by persistent young offenders.
We are also pursuing traditional crime prevention measures, and a more general national crime prevention publicity campaign to engage much more widespread public awareness of the part which individuals can play in the fight against crime. The multi-media campaign will be launched in spring 1995 and will focus on housebreaking.
I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members wish to oppose the Bill on the basis that the Scottish court system is under pressure from increasing work loads. One of the principal aims of the Bill is to relieve the pressure on the courts and prosecutors. We are making changes to the bail system, to late pleas, to pre-trial procedures, and improving procedures without unbalancing the scales of justice. If the Opposition have further suggestions to make, I hope that they will offer them to the House today.
If Opposition Members oppose the Bill, they oppose measures to improve the operation of bail; they oppose giving the courts powers to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes; they oppose measures to assist the police in detecting crime through extending the use of DNA; and they oppose taking the opportunity to improve the operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland. And they oppose measures, of the kind referred to a moment ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to reduce the waste of police time involved in waiting unnecessarily at court.
It does little credit to the Labour party and its pretence to care about these issues that it should so distort the facts and oppose a measure designed to reinforce the fight in which we should all be joining against crime in Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson: I know that the Secretary of State is under pressure on almost every front today, but that really is no excuse for his misrepresentation of our reasons for tabling a reasoned amendment in a Second Reading debate. He tries to imply that we oppose the Bill's Second Reading, but we do not. The amendment, in the tradition of reasoned amendments down the years, regrets certain aspects of the Bill, and states that the House should not give the Bill a Second Reading on certain specific grounds.
I intend to welcome certain aspects of the Bill, but its general failure to tackle the crisis of crime that so many people fear has led us to table a reasoned amendment, not to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in his speech to tell us whether his party will vote against the Bill tonight. He will also be able to tell us which measures he will propose in Committee; and he will have a chance to respond to some of the points that I have just made in answer to the terms of his reasoned amendment.
The Bill contains provisions which will mark a watershed in the operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland, and will equip it to deal with the challenges that we will all face in combating crime as we move into the 21st century. It is a Scottish Bill tailored to Scottish needs and circumstances which builds on the best traditions of our distinctive legal system.
The measures in the Bill were drafted after a comprehensive and detailed review of the present system and a consultation process which took account of the views of all the major organisations associated with the criminal justice system in Scotland and of a great number of individuals with particular knowledge and expertise. We are grateful for the many thoughtful comments that we received, which have informed the development of our proposals.

Mr. George Foulkes: At least one Opposition Member—namely, me—would be more sympathetic to the Bill if it included some provisions to give power to licensing committees, along the lines suggested by Sheriff Gow, in relation to places such as Hangar 13 which run raves. I know that the right hon. Gentleman shares my concern about the increase in drugs crime. I have tabled a parliamentary question, which has not yet had a reply, asking him to give some consideration to legislation that would take account of the recommendations of Sheriff Neil Gow in the wake of a fatal accident inquiry.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of including some such provision in the Bill?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman raises a topic that has the makings of an interesting debate in Committee. I have no doubt that he will look forward to participating in such a debate.
I am confident that we have struck the correct balance with the proposals in the Bill. We have been prepared to listen to the advice that we have been given and to come

to conclusions in the light of that advice. That view was endorsed by the support that the Bill received in another place.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I understand the approach that the Secretary of State is adopting about the extent of the consultation that was carried through. Will he tell us why the Scottish Office rejected the approach that was exemplified in the early 1970s with the appointment of Lord Thomson to head a committee that was given the task of examining Scottish criminal law and procedure, which produced two extremely valuable reports? Why was the same approach not followed in this instance?

Mr. Lang: I shall have something to say about Lord Thomson's report or reports when I reach that stage in my comments on the contents of the Bill, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me until then.
The Bill seeks essentially to do two things: first, it contains provisions that will significantly enhance the powers of the criminal justice agencies in the fight against crime; secondly, and equally important, are provisions that are aimed at making the system work more effectively and efficiently.
I turn to the specific proposals in the Bill. Concern about the operation of bail, and especially offending while on bail, has featured in correspondence from hon. Members on both sides of the House in recent years. Breach of bail is a breach of the court's trust. We intend to tighten bail procedures by restricting the circumstances in which bail may be granted or reviewed, and by increasing the courts' powers to deal firmly with offending on bail. These proposals are contained in clauses 1 to 5.
In particular, the provisions on bail would enable a court to increase any sentence beyond what it would otherwise impose if a person has offended while on bail. Separately, we are extending to a limited, but desirable, degree the circumstances in which bail cannot be granted. Fewer than one in five of court cases is made the subject of a bail order, but there were an estimated 27,000 offences committed while on bail last year. Those offences were carried out by relatively few offenders. An extra six months, or 60 days in district courts, and/or a fine of £1,000 will, with the other provisions, send a clear message that release on bail is not a right to be abused. The provisions that are set out in the Bill will offer greater protection to the public from the menace of offending on bail.
Fundamental to our criminal justice system is the principle of trial by jury. The Bill contains a number of proposals to improve the selection of juries; to make there more representative and to reduce the inconvenience that is experienced by those who are called to court but not asked to serve. Those proposals are contained in clauses 6 to 8. They include the abolition of peremptory challenge, a procedure which the Government believe is widely abused and which serves no useful purpose that cannot be achieved by the other more rational means of exemption, namely, of cause shown to the court.
There are about 1,300 jury trials a year. Of the 100,000 people cited annually for jury service, only about 20,000 serve on a jury. That is one in five. Clearly there is a need for more effective ways of avoiding such a huge waste of time and waste of resources.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the present system of peremptory


challenge, people turn up wearing nice suits, shirts and ties and are challenged by defence lawyers because they look respectable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace and that it is one of the reasons for voting for the Bill?

Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will find that the package of measures that bear on juries in clauses 6 to 8 meets the concern to which he has properly drawn attention.
The Bill contains two proposals flowing from a review of judicial examination and the right to silence. These have given rise to some controversy. That must be because they have been misunderstood. I look forward to hearing how Opposition Members justify their opposition. It may be helpful to the House if I try to make clear exactly what is involved.
The proposal in clause 10 to allow prosecutors to ask accused persons under examination whether they admit rather than deny certain facts is little more than a technical change. Judicial examination takes place at an early stage, usually just after the accused has been arrested and charged. It enables the accused in the presence of his solicitor, and under the protection of a sheriff, to answer the procurator fiscal's questions and, if he wishes, to state his own position at the earliest opportunity.
At present the procurator fiscal's questions must be framed in a convoluted form to avoid appearing to seek an admission, even though a failure to deny could be just as incriminating. The proceedings can be difficult for everyone, not least the accused, to understand. Clause 10 will enable a simpler and more intelligible form of questioning to be adopted, which will benefit all who participate in judicial examination and a subsequent trial, including the accused person.
The clause will not, contrary to what some have suggested, require the accused person to break his silence, or to incriminate himself. If the accused chooses not to answer questions, he could do so, as many accused persons do now. If he chooses to answer, his answers need not be any different from what they would be under the current law. After all, he can refuse to admit just as easily as he can deny.
Nor will clause 10 enable procurators fiscal to engage in cross-examination or to try to drag confessions out of the accused. The fiscal is prohibited from asking leading questions, or reiterating questions, or challenging the truth of anything that the accused has already said. The sheriff is under a duty to ensure that all questions are fairly put to and understood by the accused.
There appears to be some confusion among Opposition Members about adversarial and inquisitorial systems. Judicial examination, which is a quasi-inquisitorial procedure, has existed in one form or another for centuries, although it fell into disuse in the early part of this century. The procedure was revived in 1980 following the recommendation of the Thomson committee on criminal procedure, which recommended that the procurator fiscal should be able to ask questions designed to prevent the fabrication of a false line of defence at an early stage; and that the accused should have an early opportunity to state his or her case and perhaps clear himself or herself.
The committee also suggested the type of questions that should be permitted at judicial examination. I entirely agreed with the committee when it said:
it is difficult to see how such questions could prejudice the position of an innocent accused and even more difficult to see why they should be regarded as unfair to a guilty accused".
Clause 28 will allow the prosecutor to comment on an accused person's failure to give evidence at his trial. I believe that that is simply common sense. When an accused person has not given evidence, everyone in the courtroom is aware of that fact. The judge and the defence may, in appropriate circumstances, comment on it, but the prosecutor may not. Such prohibition is a wholly artificial constraint on the prosecutor's ability to put the full case before the court. In Scotland, juries have always been able to draw inferences from an accused person's silence and it defies common sense to suggest that they should not. We believe that it is far better that the prosecutor should be able to raise the issue directly and in open court, when it can be dealt with fairly under the direction of the judge.
There is no need to fear that the ability to comment will result in unfairness. Comments are likely to be made with restraint, lest they are challenged on appeal. The defence has the opportunity to respond to any comments made in its summing up, and the judge has a duty to ensure that comments made by both sides are fair and that the jury understands the law.
Both provisions were supported by a wide range of parties, including the Scottish judiciary, in consultation, and both received endorsement in another place from Lord McCluskey, a senior High Court judge. I think that we may therefore claim authoritative support for these modest but sensible reforms. I hope that Opposition Members will resist the temptation to indulge in knee-jerk reaction to the proposals for their own reasons.
The Bill contains important proposals, in clauses 13 and 14, for reducing needless attendance in court by victims and witnesses of crime. At present, no fewer than four out of every five of those called to court do not have to give evidence. About half of them are police officers, who could otherwise be out investigating and detecting crime; many others are victims, whose stress and trauma is increased by attendance in court; others are simply law-abiding citizens who have witnessed a crime and have come forward to assist the police and prosecution in upholding the law. It would very serious if such people became disenchanted by their experience and, therefore, less likely to come forward in future.
Our proposals for mandatory intermediate diets in summary cases, and the introduction of first diets in sheriff and jury cases, have the potential to cut by half the number of people who attend court unnecessarily. We know that because similar proposals have been tested in pilot schemes and because more and more courts are introducing those procedures voluntarily. For example, in Edinburgh sheriff court, 1,500 civilian and police witnesses are being relieved from court attendance each month. That is the equivalent of 18,000 in a year. In Dunfermline sheriff court, 340 witnesses are being excused each month and a similar number are being excused in Kirkcaldy sheriff court.
Taken together, the courts which have introduced intermediate diets are already releasing more than 1,000 police officers for operational duties each month. A


similar rate of success across the country would result in several tens of thousands of police officer days each year being freed for the fight against crime.

Mr. Foulkes: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just described. However, that cannot work in a sheriff court such as Ayr sheriff court, where there are not even enough witness rooms. That puts witnesses off. When witnesses for the prosecution are put in the same room as witnesses for the defence, they can be intimidated. That causes a great deal of concern.
I have been writing to the Secretary of State—the matter is being dealt with by the Minister—and to Strathclyde asking them to get together to sort out the accommodation problems in Ayr sheriff court. The problem has been going on for years. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that, because that point is even more important than the provisions in the Bill? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer that question because he seems to be unable to answer questions. I know that he has a lot of problems on his mind at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been attacking him—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow the Secretary of State to respond.

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extensive capital programme of upgrading sheriff courts on which the Government have embarked since coming to office in 1979 and having found a somewhat derelict case. With regard to the provisions in the Bill, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that precisely the same consequence can be achieved in Ayr as has been achieved in Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline and Edinburgh.
The purpose of the provisions in the Bill is to provide a firmer and clearer statutory framework for the best practice that has been identified and to ensure that those benefits are brought to victims and witnesses all over Scotland. If the experience so far is repeated across Scotland, we can expect many thousands of victims and witnesses to be relieved of the burden of attending court unnecessarily. That would represent a dramatic improvement for the victims and witnesses of crime, on whose support our criminal justice system relies. It would also provide an enormous boost to the capacity of the police to fight crime.

Mr. Dalyell: Is any action going to be taken against solicitors who allow their clients to plead guilty at the last moment when they must have known jolly well, for weeks if not for months, that they were going to do that? Is that not a deep abuse of professional conduct?

Mr. Lang: Again, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very germane point which I will address, if he will permit me, when I reach that stage in my speech.
The burden which being called to give evidence can impose on witnesses is also being tackled in the Bill. Clauses 16 to 25 contain important measures for the agreement of routine evidence. That will reduce the extent to which witnesses, in particular police witnesses, have to attend court to give evidence which is uncontroversial and, in the event, not disputed.
The Bill contains two important provisions on sentencing. Clause 29 will make it clear that courts may take into account the fact that an accused person has pleaded guilty and the timing and circumstances in which the plea was made when deciding the appropriate sentence. Nearly 70 per cent.—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow—of accused persons plead guilty straight away while 90 per cent. do so eventually. Of those accused persons who at present plead not guilty up to the day of the trial, two out of three will plead guilty on the day of the trial. Clause 29 will clarify an area of law on which there has been some uncertainty in Scotland and may encourage those who will plead guilty anyway to do so at an earlier stage.
Clause 30 provides expressly for the Appeal Court to issue opinions on the appropriate sentence for cases similar to the particular case before it and requires the lower courts to have regard to those opinions. That should help to make available to the lower courts, on a systematic basis, the wisdom and experience of our most senior judges and so should help to increase consistency in sentencing without eroding judicial discretion.
The courts will continue to be able to take account of genuine variations in circumstances, which may not be apparent to the public in superficially similar cases. I believe that we should do all that we can to encourage consistency of sentencing in genuinely similar cases.
I want now to consider appeals. Further provisions aimed at reducing delay in the criminal justice system are contained in clause 37, which introduces a requirement for leave to appeal. The test which an application will have to pass in order for leave to appeal to be granted will be that it demonstrates arguable grounds of appeal. At present, many appeals are abandoned before they come to a hearing and the provision will allow frivolous and unmeritorious appeals to be sifted out at an early stage. There has been a threefold increase in the number of criminal appeals over the decade to 1992, but almost 40 per cent. are abandoned before the hearing and only about one in five is successful.
The new leave to appeal procedure, along with the proposals in clause 38 to reduce the number of High Court judges required to consider appeals against sentence only, should help the Appeal Court in dealing with the high number of appeals that have been lodged in recent years.
Clauses 41 to 49 contain proposals to change the way in which our criminal justice system deals with the small but vulnerable category of accused persons who are insane and therefore unfit to stand trial, and those who are tried but acquitted because they were insane at the time they committed the offence.
Our proposals will mean that, in future, when there can be no trial there will at least be an examination of the facts to establish that the accused did the act with which he is charged, before he is perhaps committed to hospital without limit of time. We also propose that the courts should have a wider range of disposal options in such cases, including a community-based "supervision and treatment order". However, let me stress that a court will still be able, on the same basis as now, to impose a hospital order with restrictions when it considers that necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
Clauses 54 and 55 provide for the extension of fiscal fines, a disposal unique to Scotland within the United Kingdom. The provisions will extend the scope of fiscal fines to a wider range of minor offences.
I should make it quite clear, since some commentators have misunderstood our intentions, that those proposals have nothing to do with decriminalisation; nor are they targeted on drugs offences. They provide an additional weapon in the procurator fiscal's armoury. The consequence will be an increase in the capacity of our prosecutors and our courts to deal with more serious crime. In deciding whether to offer a fine in a particular case, the fiscal will be operating under clear guidance from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
The Government recognise the significant potential which criminal justice social work services have to reduce offending behaviour. Our intention continues to be to reduce, so far as is possible, the use of imprisonment by the courts in cases where a community-based disposal would be appropriate. That policy is particularly important for fine default and the proposals in the Bill will encourage the use of supervised attendance orders in place of custody or, for 16 and 17-year-olds, in place of the fine itself.
Part II contains comprehensive provisions to deprive offenders of the proceeds and the instruments of crime. These are simple objectives which will, I hope, draw support from both sides of the House. The provisions in part II are derived from the report on confiscation and forfeiture which was presented to Parliament last September by the Scottish Law Commission. That report recommended the extension of confiscation arrangements to general crime where the offences are prosecuted on indictment or the maximum sentence in summary proceedings exceeds the normal penalties. It also recommended the reform of forfeiture provisions to improve the effectiveness of court forfeiture of the instruments of crime and to clarify the rights of third parties.
The Government moved quickly to present those provisions to Parliament by including them in this Bill. While we accept the main recommendations, minor amendments to the Scottish Law Commission report have been necessary. Some further minor changes may be required.
We have also announced our intention to consolidate Scottish criminal procedure. It is now 20 years since the last major consolidation of criminal procedure legislation. A number of provisions to facilitate that exercise are included in the Bill and we will be bringing forward others. This modernisation and rationalisation of the legislation will, I am sure, be welcomed by all who use our criminal courts.
At the same time the Bill includes, at the suggestion of the Lord Justice-General, arrangements for a new rules council for criminal court proceedings. With similar functions to the existing rules councils for civil court proceedings and a broad-based membership, the new council will provide a structured consultative forum for considering and commenting on proposals for changes to the court rules.
I have outlined thus far the main provisions in the Bill. I should not conclude without referring to three issues on which there has been public debate recently, but which are not included in the Bill presented to the House.
The Bill does not contain any proposals to change the verdicts which may be returned in Scottish courts. We reviewed the three-verdict system very thoroughly. We set

out the arguments for and against three verdicts impartially, and consulted widely before reaching a decision. The responses to that consultation made it clear that the three-verdict system continues to be valued in Scotland and that, although there are strong views on both sides, there is considerably more support for the retention of the not proven verdict than for its abolition. After full consideration of all the arguments, we concluded that the not proven verdict should remain. The Government's position is therefore based on the clear outcome of consultation with the people of Scotland, and I am sure that the House will take careful note of that.
We also consulted on whether there should be changes to the criteria for the consideration of appeals by the Appeal Court and the way in which alleged miscarriages of justice are handled in Scotland. We had in view the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which recommended changes for England and Wales.
The outcome of our consultation was inconclusive. Many of those who responded felt that the issues were too complex to comment on in detail. We received no evidence that there was any consensus on the way forward in Scotland in that sensitive and complex matter.
As a result, I decided to ask Sir Stewart Sutherland, the principal of Edinburgh university, to chair an independent committee to advise on whether any changes were needed to the current criteria for the consideration of appeals by the Appeal Court and to the machinery for handling alleged miscarriages of justice and, if so, what the nature of those changes might be.
The committee has started its task energetically and it has extended a general invitation to interested parties and to members of the public to submit comments. I have asked the committee to report by or before July 1996. If the committee is to give those difficult issues the consideration that they deserve, it will need time to do so. Those who call for an early report from the committee perhaps underestimate the task that it has been set.
I do not believe, therefore, that it would be right to include in the Bill provisions which purport to deal with miscarriages of justice. I intend to await the report of the Sutherland committee before deciding how to proceed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Secretary of State may be aware, there is some judicial controversy in Scotland as to whether existing provisions allow for the use at appeal of evidence which was not available at the time of the original trial. Indeed, it appears that the illustrious Lord Justice-General, Lord Hope, takes one view and that the equally illustrious Lord Justice Clerk takes another. As the Secretary of State is probably aware, it is proposed to convene a court of five judges to try to deal with the matter. May we take it that the Sutherland committee will take evidence from the two senior judges in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand why the idea of my coming between the Lord Justice-General and Lord Justice Clerk would be to put myself between a rock and a hard place. I will allow the Sutherland committee to consider how best it should proceed in considering that matter, as I am sure that it will wish to do.

Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State is aware that the Home Secretary has published a miscarriages review authority Bill for England and Wales. It will mean a mismatch of remedies available to United


Kingdom citizens regarding miscarriages of justice—one rule for England and Wales and another for Scotland. In the event that the Sutherland committee recommends legislation, will the Government ensure that the matter is given sufficient time in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Lang: In our legal procedures, perhaps more than in any other matter, we in Scotland should decide upon what is right for Scotland and Scottish circumstances rather than be driven by what is decided upon south of the border. That has certainly always driven our approach in the past. However, I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall await with considerable interest the outcome of the Sutherland committee's report before we are able to consider how to react to it.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the committee's decision will not interfere with applications for the prerogative of mercy that are currently before him? Of course, the Secretary of State has used his discretion, for which we are very grateful, to look again at the Raymond Gilmour case. There is no need to wait for the committee's decision before that case is considered.

Mr. Lang: Of course, I cannot bind myself or my officials in the context of forthcoming cases, but, in respect of the cases that are before us, I see no reason why that should be the case. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman to ensure that such cases are considered with all due haste but without prejudicing the interests of justice.
Certain amendments addressing various aspects of the interests of victims in the criminal justice process were tabled for consideration in another place. They generated widespread debate, which the Government welcomed.
Let there be no doubt about our commitment to improving the provision of support and information to victims. Our funding next year for the organisation Victim Support (Scotland) will rise by 11 per cent. to £975,000. Local court-based initiatives, such as that at Hamilton sheriff court, are looking at how best to improve victims' understanding of and experience at court. Also, research is under way into the delivery of support services to victims and into exactly what information victims at court need and want. Those projects will inform our decisions as to what further improvements can be made.
This Bill will also play an important part by reducing the demands made on victims by court procedures and improving the capacity of the police, the prosecution and the courts to deal quickly and efficiently with crime.
This is a substantial Bill, which aims to make significant improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency with which crime is tackled in Scotland. It builds on the best elements of our distinctive system of Scots law and takes account of the views of those who have participated in the comprehensive review that we have conducted in Scotland over the past two years.

Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government considered what some of us regard as the very unsatisfactory nature of fatal accident inquiries?

Mr. Lang: I do not think that anything in the Bill deals directly with fatal accident inquiries, but that issue could perfectly reasonably be raised in Committee.
We are fortunate in Scotland in enjoying a criminal justice system which commands widespread respect. Nevertheless, there can be no room for complacency, and none exists among Conservative Members. The public rightly expect justice to be delivered quickly, fairly and efficiently by our criminal justice system. I believe that the Bill, building on the strengths of our distinctive system of criminal justice, will, if enacted, mark a step change in the efficiency and effectiveness of our system. It will play an important part in reducing demands on victims by court procedures, and ensure that the system is more sensitive to their needs. It will help to clamp down on the unnecessary attendance of witnesses in courts, reduce the burden on the police and the public and, more important, allow thousands if not tens of thousands of police days to be spent back on the beat, not idled away in our courtrooms. It will bring in new provisions to tighten up bail procedures and help to tackle offending on bail, which the public rightly abhor.
In contrast, the frivolous and opportunistic approach of the Labour party is reflected in the preposterous amendment. The Bill is one more set of measures that have been developed with care, thoroughness and determination, based on the authoritative reports of four distinguished review bodies to help us to fight crime, deal with the criminal, assist the victim, and improve efficiency, for the benefit of police, witnesses and society generally.
In recent years, we have substantially strengthened the police, increased the funding of law and order maintenance, toughened sentences, and built up crime prevention measures. For three successive years, we have turned back the tide of crime. Now we must make sure that the criminal justice system plays its full part in continuing that battle and in preparing for the needs of the next century. The Bill enables it to do that, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move,
That this House declines to give the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because it believes that the Bill is not an acceptable or effective measure to tackle crime because fails to address adequately levels of crime in Scotland, particularly the rising trends in violent crime, vandalism, robberies and drugs offences, does nothing to address the underlying causes of crime, represents a major assault on the presumption of innocence and the right to silence as well as a tacit shift away from Scotland's present adversarial system of justice to an inquisitorial system, and fails to relieve adequately the pressure on the Scottish court system created by increasing workloads and under-resourcing.
It is staggering how sensitive the Secretary of State is to a reasonably expressed, reasoned amendment. The Secretary of State, perhaps rattled by criticism over the weekend, has decided that the procedure, which is well known in the House, is opposition to the Bill. Our reasoned amendment is as reasoned amendments always have been—a reason for the House of Commons to delay consideration of a Bill until issues identified in the amendment have been addressed and settled. Nothing in the amendment is controversial. Indeed, I am sure that, if they examine it, other Conservative Members—although precious few are present—will find that it has attractive aspects.
The Secretary of State, of course, may consider debates such as this as big a burden on the Conservative party as the whole Scottish contingent seems to be.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why 43 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are not present?

Mr. Robertson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not all out on the Pollok estate. The Pollok estate is probably quite safe; they are all out undermining the Government's credibility—which is low enough already—without the aid of any artificial implement.
The House greatly regrets the absence of the late hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross—

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) clearly cannot count. He suggested that only seven Labour Members of Parliament were present; at least 12 are here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention to his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), he would probably not have chosen that moment to make a frivolous point of order.

Mr. Robertson: Let me repeat that we regret the absence of our late hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. He would have brought his distinctive knowledge and experience of Scottish law to our debate, and I venture to suggest that he would have had a few acerbic comments to offer the Secretary of State about some of the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks are much appreciated by Conservative Members.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State, but I do not think that much of what follows will be greeted in the same way.
I welcome the fact that the Government have at last introduced a separate Bill to reform the criminal justice system in Scotland. It makes a pleasant change from Ministers' usual practice of tagging Scottish measures on to English Bills. Many of us remember with considerable dissatisfaction the disgraceful way in which the crime of aggravated trespass—an alien concept—was introduced into Scottish law: it was simply added at the end of the Criminal Justice Bill affecting England and Wales.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will forgive me for saying that my colleagues and I look forward to the day when matters such as this will be decided in a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh, and when Scotland's legal system will at last have its own legislature.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman be there?

Mr. Robertson: I certainly hope to be. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will be elected to any Parliament at the next general election.

Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that is not frivolous, but important and fundamental. If he plans to sit in a Scottish

Parliament in Edinburgh, will he tell us where he proposes to pay his tax and where it will be deducted for the purposes of that Parliament?

Mr. Robertson: I have said—I will say it no more—that I shall be proud to be a Member of a Scottish Parliament: the Scottish Parliament that we alone will provide for the Scottish people, in accordance with their views. Even given the breadth of the Bill's long title, the details of taxation relating to that Parliament are not relevant to today's debate, but there is a perfectly reasonable answer to be made.
Ministers have spoken at length, in the other place and outside Westminster, about the painstaking consultation that preceded the publication of the Bill. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that we shall have adequate time in Committee to debate all aspects of the Bill. It may well be some time before we have a chance to debate such matters again; I hope that we shall do so in a devolved Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, but it is vital for us to get the balance right at this stage.
In the House of Lords, the Minister of State described the Bill as
the most substantial overhaul of the criminal justice system in Scotland in the last 15 years."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 29 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 545.]
Although the Bill contains some worthy reforms, it hardly amounts to a major assault on crime and its underlying causes. No one would recognise it from the Minister of State's description.
The White Paper "Firm and Fair", which preceded the Bill, said:
This White Paper is a further step in our fight against crime…our highest priority is to protect the public from crime and criminals.
Some people in Scotland, sickened and let down by the rise in crime and the consequent fear of crime, will gain some comfort from the Bill, thinking that it may contribute to allaying their distress. They will be deeply disappointed. There will be victims of crime, left scarred emotionally and physically long after a trial and even a sentence, who are looking for hope—people trapped in their houses after dark, afraid to walk the streets or leave their cars unattended in the streets of the Scotland of 1995. They, too, will look today for reassurance and peace of mind and they, too, will he disappointed.
Reform and reorganisation of the Scottish criminal justice system on a piecemeal basis, containing inexplicable, alien and party political attacks on certain basic Scottish characteristics of the system, are no contribution at all to tackling some of the most worrying and depressing features of the way in which crime and criminality affect people in Scotland today.
Of course I welcome the recent drops in recorded crime figures. It must be said, indeed, that it is in the big Labour regions in Scotland that the most progress has been made, and it is there that some projects have had their impact. But is it not strange that when the crime figures are good and progress has been made it is to the Government's credit, while when things go wrong or establishment levels cannot be attained it is all the fault of local authorities? Those of us who observed the success of Operation Blade—pioneered in Strathclyde by a chief constable under a Labour local authority—can have no doubt that a locally accountable police force in an area


that was responsive to its own people and their needs was able to make a dramatic impact on a form of crime that intimidated people. The Labour regions should be given some of the credit for the impact that has been made.
There is, however, no justification for complacency. The most recent figures must be set against the massive increases of previous years. Between 1981 and 1991, for example, the number of recorded offences in Scotland increased by 44 per cent. The fact remains that, although crime figures have dropped recently, they have increased substantially as a whole since the Conservative party came to power.

Mr. William McKelvey: The number of violent crimes is increasing, but they are not always reported or recorded.

Mr. Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, we must also recognise that crime figures do not take into account the significant number of offences that are either not reported or not recorded. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. The Scottish crime survey, published in April last year, estimated that in 1992 just over 1 million crimes and offences were committed in Scotland. Of that number, only 39 per cent. ended up in police statistics on recorded crime. There is good reason to believe that the Government's figures do not tell the whole story.
Beyond that, there are some disturbing trends that are hidden within the overall figures: the rise in violent crime, the explosion in drug offences and the increase in vandalism, robberies and car thefts. Between 1989 and 1993, robberies in Scotland rose by 26 per cent. and car thefts by 47 per cent. Since the Conservative party came to power, drug offences have increased by 1,056 per cent. That is proof, if statistical proof were needed, that the Government are losing the battle against drugs. It is a battle with which we have as much sympathy and concern as anyone on the Government Benches. It is a bleak picture that we see before us.
There is precious little in the Bill to tackle the underlying causes of crime. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Social Security on television last week finally admit that there was a link between poverty and crime. There is a blinding flash of inspiration for that last, free market, neanderthal individual. Not only have Ministers now admitted that they bear a responsibility for tackling inequality but they have at long last conceded the link between poverty, deprivation and crime. Those two key concessions clearly show that Ministers are now being forced on to Labour's agenda and that Labour is winning the battle of ideas on how to tackle crime.
Of course poverty can never excuse crime, nor does it always lead to criminal behaviour; but it would be folly to ignore the clear links that exist between poverty and crime. They are there. They are manifest. They stare us in the face. For that reason, any strategy for tackling crime that fails to deal with its underlying social causes is bound to fail. A root-and-branch attack on crime and the causes of crime is needed. By any standards, the Bill cannot be said to meet that task.
Nevertheless, as I said before, several provisions in the Bill are commendable and will enjoy our support. I was interested to note that the Minister of State in the House of Lords was kind enough to concede that many of the Government's proposals were included in our party's consultative paper "Protection and Justice", which arose out of the working party chaired by my hon. Friend the

Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). We welcome, for example, the greater use of pre-trial hearings to prevent last-minute plea changes and to establish non-controversial evidence. That will greatly reduce the inconvenience and waste that are created throughout the system by the adjournment or cancellation of trials and spare many thousands of police and civilian witnesses unnecessary attendance at court.
Similarly, we support the greater use of fiscal tines. We note the contrast between the different approaches north and south of the border. Fiscal fines will provide much-needed relief to our overburdened court system and allow those who may have offended once or in minor ways to accept responsibility for their conduct without getting a criminal record. The use of fiscal fines has so far proved extremely effective in keeping a range of minor offences out of our courts. Therefore, we welcome the proposals in the Bill to extend the range of offences for which fiscal fines can be offered, provided that they are not applied inflexibly. With fiscal fines in mind, we also support, as my hon. and noble Friends said in the House of Lords, the use of a sliding scale for fiscal fines and of attendance orders as alternatives to imprisonment for 16 to 17-year-olds as a means of dealing with fine defaults.
We welcome the proposal to extend the powers of our courts to confiscate the proceeds of crimes such as pornography, fraud, extortion, insider dealing and corruption. The powers exist now in respect of drug dealing and it is right that they should be extended to other serious crimes.
We also welcome the new safeguards in the Bill for dealing with accused persons who are insane and therefore cannot stand trial, and persons acquitted on grounds of insanity. It is wrong that, at present, a man or a woman found unfit to stand trial may be detained in a mental hospital, possibly for the rest of his or her life, without our courts reaching any view of the innocence or guilt of the individual. Therefore, we support the requirements in the Bill for courts to undertake an examination of the facts to determine whether the accused person committed the offence for which he or she was charged.
Although the Bill contains many sound proposals, we have concerns on several matters which led us to table the reasoned amendment. First, although we support the Government's aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, we believe that there must be a balance between streamlining the operation of the system and preserving the rights of the individual in criminal proceedings and the presumption of the defendant's innocence. The Secretary of State will be aware of the deep concern in Scotland that the Bill does not properly respect that balance.
It is all very well the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box and pretending that everything in the reasoned amendment and everything that is likely to be said by the Opposition are purely partisan. He knows that bodies as conservative—I use that word with a small "c"; few organisations in Scotland would any longer be described as Conservative with a capital "C"—as the Law Society of Scotland and the Glasgow Bar Association have deep misgivings about the Bill.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Glasgow Bar Association is not very conservative.

Mr. Robertson: That is an accusation which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will substantiate later in


the debate. I wonder whether it would describe itself as liberal. Does anyone these days? That is the problem for the hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is right that, in the light of those misgivings, we should streamline procedures and eliminate waste, but we should not at the same time sacrifice the basic principles of our legal system for reasons of expediency and cost cutting.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the proposed changes in the Bill, designed as they are to tip the balance of justice away from the accused in favour of the prosecution, will do just that. The accused's right of silence will be curtailed. The defence's right of peremptory challenge of a juror will be abolished. The disclosure of the accused's criminal record to juries will be permitted and the judicial examinations will be allowed to elicit an admission of guilt from the accused before there has been sufficient time for the defence to advise his or her client.
Taken together, those measures amount to a fundamental shift in the balance of justice away from the defence and in favour of the prosecution. More than that, they potentially represent a change in the very nature of the criminal justice system. At present, we have in Scotland an adversarial system in which the burden of proof is placed on the Crown. If we are to move towards watering down that obligation significantly, we will have, by default and without any real debate on what is proposed, an inquisitorial system such as that which exists on the continent. If that is the Secretary of State's intention, he should say so and make proposals for consultation on that grave and important matter. He should not pretend that he can introduce those changes without fundamentally altering the nature of our legal system.
Apart from making those general criticisms of the Bill, we shall examine more closely in Committee a number of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton will deal with some of them in his reply. They include the abolition of the right of peremptory challenge of jurors, the requirement that the defence should know the occupation and address of prospective jurors, the proposal for more judicial investigations and the new restrictions on bail.
I should like to highlight a few of the key issues that worry Opposition Members and many more people in Scotland. Clause 28 of the Bill permits the prosecutor in a trial to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence at his or her trial. No one should be in any doubt that that represents a major attack on one of the most fundamental rights of Scottish law. Our criminal justice system in Scotland is based on the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty. The change proposed by Ministers will erode that principle and is, therefore, a fundamental attack on the nature of our criminal justice system.

Mr. Lang: indicated dissent.

Mr. Robertson: Predictably, the Secretary of State shakes his head and mutters under his breath that that is not true, but what about the words of Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland? He is a distinguished representative with no partisan view. He is in hospital and I am sure that the whole House would want to send its

best wishes for a quick recovery. He is someone of real substance in Scotland—the deputy secretary of the Law Society—and he was quoted in The Herald last November as saying,
This is not just tinkering. This is the abolition of the right to silence.
Mr. Clancy said that it was not merely a modification or a qualification, but the abolition of the right to silence in Scotland.
The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties described the Government's proposals in this area as "ill-considered" and even the liberal, conservative or revolutionary—depending on how one thinks of it—Glasgow Bar Association warned that clause 28 might well conflict with articles of the European convention on human rights.
To make matters much worse, that major change has been tagged on to the Bill as a mere afterthought with only minimal consultation. Indeed, the proposal virtually or completely to abolish the right to silence in Scotland was introduced into draft statute two weeks and three days after the consultation period on the right to silence had been closed. In rushing ahead with such proposals, Ministers even ignored the advice of their own advisers, the Scottish Law Commission. To try to sneak in that change under the wire and to ignore the advice of their advisers displays a degree of contempt and arrogance that is breathtaking even by the Government's standards.
Will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State explain why such a fundamental change was introduced at such a late date? What is the reason for the sudden decision by Ministers? The official justification offered by the Minister of State in the other place was that the prosecution should have the same right as judges to comment on an accused person's silence, but that is no justification at all. The fact that the right to silence has already been eroded is not a reason for, justification of or explanation why it should be eroded still further.
Moreover, the prosecutor is already able to point out that Crown evidence is uncontradicted. As the Law Society of Scotland has noted, allowing the prosecution to comment further will only discourage accused persons from refraining to give evidence and the right to silence will inevitably be undermined. I therefore urge the Government to think again on that matter and to listen to what will be reasoned debate in the Standing Committee.
I must discuss two major omissions from the Bill. We already tackled one in our interventions—the lack of provision for new machinery for considering alleged miscarriages of justice. Of course, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he has established the Sutherland committee, which will report on that matter no later than the summer of 1996. Now that the committee has been set up, it is right that that complex subject should not be decided on precipitately, but why has it taken so long for the committee to be established?
The Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales was appointed in spring 1991 to consider that matter, among others, in respect of England and Wales. It reported in June 1993 and the Government have acted on its recommendations by establishing the new criminal cases review commission only last week. Why then has it taken so long for a similar committee to be established in Scotland? Clearly, there have been more high-profile examples of miscarriages of justice south of the border—


that remains a fact—but is the Secretary of State seriously arguing that there is no concern about the matter in Scotland?
The second notable omission from the Bill concerns the question of the not proven verdict. I would be the first to concede that there are passionate advocates on both sides of that argument and, for that reason, the question should be decided in Parliament on a free vote. When the matter is raised on Report, there will be a free vote among my colleagues in the Opposition on whether to retain or abolish Scotland's third verdict in Scotland.
I have long campaigned for the abolition of the not proven verdict, which is a bad and unnecessary verdict. Indeed, Sir Walter Scott described it as
that bastard verdict, illogical, contrary to legal principle and wholly indefensible.
Since then, many other people have come to that opinion. It neither clears nor convicts the accused and, as a consequence, it undermines the fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty.
As a verdict, it leaves the accused and the victim hanging in limbo and for the rest of us it leaves a permanent question mark. The accused person may well be acquitted but will still bear a stain on his or her character. The accused may never be tried again but may never be able to clear his or her name. It is as unjust to the accused as it is to the victim and the victim's family.
Obliging a jury to choose between a guilty or a not guilty verdict, as is the case in every other country, means that the accused and the victim at least know where they stand. More importantly, the presumption of innocence that is at the heart of our Scottish legal system demands that if the Crown cannot prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt", the accused should be completely cleared.
Not proven has some backers among the legal fraternity and among the criminal fraternity, because it increases the chance of acquittal in a difficult case. It is also popular among some juries because it enables them to avoid a difficult decision. Undoubtedly, it is an attractive proposition for defendants who view it as an alternative to conviction and gaol.
In the White Paper on which the Bill is based, the Government make it clear on page 49 that
Although the remit of the Royal Commission did not extend to Scotland, the Secretary of State undertook to consider the implications of the Commission's recommendations in the Scottish context".
The Secretary of State has hardly dealt with some of the issues that fall into that category. For the record, I shall tell the House what the Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales had to say about the not proven verdict, as it is germane to the debate. It states:
During our deliberations we considered the case for introducing into England and Wales the Scottish verdict of 'not proven'. This is available in Scotland as an alternative to 'not guilty' although it still counts as an acquittal. Most of those who gave evidence to us did not favour such a verdict. We too regard it as an unsatisfactory option, particularly from the point of view of the defendant, who is left with a cloud hanging over his or her reputation. If the jury does not convict, it means that the prosecution have been unable to discharge the burden of proof and the defendant should in our view be entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
In one short, concise and economic paragraph, the royal commission, which studied that matter in some depth, came to precisely the right conclusion. My opinion is that,

for the Scottish criminal justice system and the public, it is an anomaly and an anachronism and it should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Finally, on the resource implications of the Bill, the explanatory and financial memorandum states that it is to be "cost neutral". Frankly, that claim stretches all credulity. Indeed, I remind the Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State of Lord McCluskey's description of that claim in the House of Lords as "cloud cuckoo land".
I appreciate that there are difficulties in producing detailed estimates of the additional expenditure required to implement the Bill's provisions, but I understand that the Government provided some estimates of the financial implications in the consultation paper.
Will the Secretary of State now act on the suggestion of the Law Society and assure us today that we can see the information on which that cost-neutral estimate was made? In that way, hon. Members may have a proper reasoned debate about the Bill's financial implications. It is vital that we have that debate, because it is widely recognised that the fiscal system in particular is overburdened and under-resourced. If the Bill is to he enacted on a cost-neutral basis, it will have serious implications for the way in which justice is delivered in Scotland.
Far from the House of Commons, and even further from Ministers' offices in St. Andrew's house, crime and its impact are the overriding concerns for millions of ordinary Scots, who are told that crime statistics are falling but see in their daily lives a totally different picture. They know what Ministers simply refuse to learn: that the roots of crime are deep in deprivation arid poverty, in gross inequalities and stark financial inequities that have grown during the Conservative party's period in office. Those causes are fed by the unemployment that is still so damagingly high in Scotland.
Crime and criminality hit us all, some much more than others, and cost everyone in society a vast amount in human and financial terms. That is why those tinkering knee-jerk measures go nowhere near far enough to tackle the crime crisis that affects Scotland today. That is why the Bill should be taken away and looked at again and that is why the House should vote for the reasoned amendment. Although we shall not vote against Second Reading, I commend the reasoned amendment for the attention and support of the entire House.

Mr. Allan Stewart: This is an important debate on an important Bill. It has already resulted in an important statement from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). In dealing with the procedures that he believes should in future apply to the Bill's measures, he said that not only should they be considered by a Scottish Parliament under a Labour Government, but that he would serve in that Parliament. Let us be clear, therefore, that he has told the people of Hamilton that there will be a by-election in the middle of the next Labour Parliament.

Mr. George Robertson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he or will he not serve in a Scottish Assembly if there is a Labour Government? I understood that he told


the House that measures should be considered by a Scottish Parliament in which he would serve, which means a by-election.
I strongly support the Bill. Furthermore, I shall even apply to the Committee of Selection to serve on the Standing Committee. The queue of Conservative Members may be so long that I shall be killed in the rush, but I should be delighted to be considered to serve on the Committee because I believe that the Bill is extremely important.
I have good and bad news for the hon. Member for Hamilton: the good news is that I welcome the fact that the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment and will not vote against Second Reading; the bad news is that I shall not vote for it.
I wish to discuss three major issues relating to the Bill. The first is the right to make a peremptory challenge. The Government's proposals are absolutely correct because hon. Members on both sides of the House know what happens with the right of peremptory challenge. It is easy to turn up for jury service in Scotland and ensure that one is challenged by the defence lawyer. One simply turns up looking like the hon. Member for Hamilton or his hon. Friends—respectable, wearing suits, nice shirts and ties. One is then challenged and can leave. Everyone knows that that is what happens, so I strongly support my right hon. Friend's proposal.
Secondly, I strongly support the proposals to deal with further offences committed while on bail. Nothing outrages ordinary citizens more than when someone on bail reoffends.
Thirdly, I strongly support the proposals, in clauses 13 and 14 in particular, on witnesses who are not called. The hon. Member for Hamilton made it clear to the House that the Labour party also supports those proposals. There is no doubt about what happens in Scottish courts. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has slipped out of the Chamber for a moment, made a valid point on that matter. Witnesses turn up at court and find that the case has been deferred or the plea changed. Prosecution and defence witnesses are in the same room and intimidation takes place. The result is not just inconvenience but that ordinary citizens vow that they will not go through that again. They decide that, the next time they see an offence being committed, they will walk on the other side of the street.

Mr. McMaster: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that another group of people who suffer inconvenience are the police? When I last asked for an estimate of the amount of police time wasted in courtrooms on cases that would not be heard on the specified date or at the specified time, I was told that up to a third of the police overtime budget can be wasted on time spent hanging around courts.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a waste of police time and is extremely frustrating for the police, who simply want to get on with their job. They do not want to sit around waiting for trials that do not take place.
The Bill will spare thousands of victims and witnesses unnecessary attendance at court by reducing late cancellations and adjournments of trials. The figures are well known and accepted on both sides of the House. In

sheriff courts, more than 40 per cent. of trials are cancelled and 30 per cent. are adjourned, while only some 20 per cent. go ahead on the day specified. The Bill will help to deal with those problems and should be supported by the entire House.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but that is not the only issue that concerns people who attend court as witnesses. They are also concerned about the provision for witnesses. In some courts in Scotland, witnesses are not separated, which leads to intimidation of witnesses by others present, such as friends who may be there to give evidence for the defence rather than the prosecution. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Hamilton) is right to ask for the financial cost of implementing the best parts of the Bill. That needs to be spelt out so that we can ensure that facilities for witnesses attending sheriff courts do not allow for the aggression that takes place in many courts.

Mr. Stewart: In principle, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has said, I have no doubt that intimidation takes place. My hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to hear, however, that I am not advocating a general increase in public expenditure to deal with that—that would astonish the House—but the hon. Member makes a perfectly fair point. It is all very well for senior lawyers in Edinburgh to say that everything is all right but other hon. Members and I are well aware that intimidation occurs in such circumstances.
I strongly support the record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister on law and order in Scotland. Expenditure is not, of course, a measure of effectiveness, but there is no doubt that spending on law and order in Scotland has increased by 55 per cent. in real terms since 1979. There are now 1,500 more police officers in Scotland than there were in 1979; police constables' salaries have increased greatly; and victim support groups now receive substantial funding. I therefore believe that the Government's record is outstanding. I also believe, however, that there is never any room for complacency.
I do not want to speak at length on the clear challenge to law and order that now exists in relation to the M77 extension. Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), perhaps the most right-wing member of the Scottish Labour party, will disagree with me about the principle of the road. That is their right, but there was a demonstration at the weekend—we all saw the pictures—which was illegal. It did not conform with the terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which was passed by the House. As I recall, the provisions governing demonstrations were passed without a Division. That illegal demonstration was against the law of the land.
The Minister has worked enormously hard in his capacity as the Minister with responsibility for roads—no one could have worked harder for the extension. He must accept that that demonstration, which is a challenge to the House of Commons and to the law of the land, must be met. The issue is not about trees or roads, but whether people can act illegally against the law that the House has passed.

Mr. Mike Watson: Since the hon. Gentleman has impugned my reputation by describing me


as the most right-wing member of the Labour party in Scotland, I am bound to respond. I do not condone the violence that has occurred at the site of the proposed M77 extension, but when the hon. Gentleman speaks about upholding the law, he must recognise that those hon. Members who do not support that extension are concerned about the legality of the decision. In fact, we have the backing of official Labour party policy, which is in favour of a moratorium on motorway building. We are comfortable about that decision.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some doubt about whether the motorway extension is legal, as it has not yet been clarified whether an environmental protection order was established before permission to give the go-ahead was granted? Does he accept that there are different aspects to legality and that whether the extension is built remains to be put firmly in a sound legal context?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the M77 when discussing the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: I wholly support the hon. Gentleman's right to put his point of view democratically. No doubt those on the Opposition Front Bench will, at an appropriate juncture, make it clear whether they support Strathclyde regional council.
The Bill is about law and order, criminal justice and improving the legal system. A challenge has been launched against the law of Scotland, irrespective of our democratic views, by the Pollok free state and the illegal march. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will make it unequivocally clear that the House passes legislation about the laws of the United Kingdom and that the Government, or any other Government, are thereby committed to implementing those laws on behalf of the citizens of our country.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I would like to consider whether the measures in the Bill are likely to improve the real situation that faces people in the community. I want to look in particular at the provisions dealing with bail and to highlight a real difficulty faced by many of my constituents. It has been caused by groups of marauding young men and women, in gangs, who are terrorising decent people and committing serious assaults and robberies in small geographical areas.
A particular gang, which has been active in part of my area for a while, is not being dealt with adequately by the existing legal system. I do not believe that the Bill's provisions will overcome that difficulty. The gang, which is known as the "Crossey Posse"—the name comes from the Crossloan road and, presumably, the diet of westerns of those youngsters—has been causing havoc. The police have identified them and are now taking some action against them. Of the 18 members, they have accumulated between them 259 arrests for violence, dishonesty, breaches of the peace and carrying weapons. It is clear that detection has not acted as a deterrent to those youngsters. The legal system does not seem able to protect decent people from them. The delays in the system and the way in which it operates often mean that those people, once caught, are freed to commit a similar or different offence that same weekend. I do not believe that any provisions in the Bill would remedy that problem.
The police, having identified that gang, are taking steps, with my support, to target those individuals. They gave me their case notes on the individuals involved and it is interesting to note that they all have one thing in common. If I go through their ages and their descriptions, even the Minister will recognise it. They are described as follows: aged 17 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed; aged 18 and unemployed; aged 21 and unemployed; aged 18 and unemployed; aged 18 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed; the next is 15 and is still at school; another is aged 19 and is unemployed; the next is 19 and is unemployed; another is 15 and is described as unemployed. Perhaps that information about the latter youngster came from a highland policeman with the gift of second sight, because a youngster of 15 will not yet be unemployed. Given his background, however, he is likely to be so in due course. The other members of the gang are described as follows: aged 20 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed; aged 16 and unemployed; aged 19 and unemployed; aged 16 and unemployed; aged 19 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed and aged 16 and unemployed.
I believe that the fact that all those people are unemployed is more than a coincidence. The circumstances in which they grew up and developed do not excuse their behaviour, but the fact that they are unemployed, with, in the vast majority of cases, no prospect of gainful employment, affects the way in which they live their lives, alters their horizons, limits their choice and channels them into anti-social paths.
The system does not appear to be dealing adequately with those people, given the offences that they have committed. One of those youngsters, aged 17, and unemployed as I mentioned, committed 34 offences and has 28 cases pending. Obviously, the system is not operating quickly enough if it allows someone to build up a backlog of 28 cases pending, eight of which were offences under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, whereby offences were committed while that person was on bail. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to occur.
Another member of the gang had 41 arrests for various offences, and 31 of those cases are still pending, including nine under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. If the system allows someone to accumulate that number of offences, the purpose of detection is partly lost. Detection should act as a deterrent. Those youngsters have been detected; they have been arrested; the papers are lying there, and nothing has happened.
Another member of the gang had arrests for 19 offences, 14 of which are still pending, two under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. Another member of the gang had arrests for 35 offences, 13 of which are still pending. Another had arrests for 42 offences, 18 of which are still pending, six under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. Another had arrests for 52 offences, 15 of which are still pending, eight under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. Another had arrests for 23 offences, 18 of which are still pending, four under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act.
Can the Minister guarantee that the proposals in the Bill will ensure that offences do not accumulate to such an extent before a trial takes place? It causes great distress to many decent people in the community when they realise that youngsters committing crime are being caught but nothing is seen to happen. There is simply an accumulation of arrests and of pending cases, with no


penalties whatsoever. That discredits the system. I hope that the Minister will tell us clearly and unequivocally that action will be taken to ensure that that is not allowed to continue.
I also hope that the Minister will clarify whether there are any measures in the Bill, or in the Government's mind to introduce in future, that affect the way in which the system deals with those who are involved with gangs, such as the one that I have described, whose members are under 16.
One of the young people in the gang, aged 15, committed 36 offences and received eight supervision orders, 14 "no proceedings" decisions—largely, I am told by the police, on the basis that the enormously overworked procurator fiscal's department has better things to do with its time—referral discharges and 10 abandoned charges. Those were not light offences. They were crimes of dishonesty such as breaking into cars, shops and houses. There are several assaults and offences of dishonesty.
When the system abandons any pretence at punishment, it is no wonder that the system is seen to be failing the people whom it is meant to protect.
In my area, complaints from members of the public were so frequent that there was the threat of vigilante groups forming to deal with some of the gang members. The police, to be fair to them, acted after they were approached recently by a substantial delegation with petitions and they have drafted in extra personnel, but such support to the community is not sustainable in the longer term. The system must be adjusted so that decent people may be confident that wrongdoers will be punished.
An argument was made earlier about the scale of police overtime wasted in courts. Certainly the staff of Govan police station tell me that a third of their overtime is wasted by waiting in court. In my opinion, that underestimates the scale of the problem, because many officers have their leave days adjusted in order to keep them in the station during the days when they are scheduled for trials. That is an enormous loss—an opportunity cost, as it were—when those officers should be doing something else. The figure of onethird grossly understates the real scale of wasted resources.
The judicial system is seen to be failing decent people, and I do not think that the Government response is adequate to deal with the scale of unhappiness in the community about those matters.
I see no evidence that the Government are prepared to do something that will make the existing bail system operate more constructively. For example, I would welcome the possibility of bail being conditional on a curfew in some circumstances—on the individuals involved staying away from specific areas where they have committed a series of offences in the past. We need fresher thinking from the Government on some of those issues.
Several issues have not been adequately tackled by the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be minded to consider those under the Bill or elsewhere.
One of the major difficulties is the problem of taking action against those who use houses owned by public authorities—council houses or housing association

properties—for dealing in drugs. I believe strongly that those involved in dealing in drugs from such houses should be evicted from them, and I think that the Government have a responsibility to try to make eviction easier than it is at the moment, because it can be a long and convoluted process. As the Government have been prepared to consider forfeiture of the artefacts used in the commission of crimes, they should consider seriously making it easier for local authorities or housing associations to evict people who are involved in drug dealing from houses that are owned by associations or councils.
The Government should consider carefully the way in which they can introduce new legislation to help to curb anti-social behaviour by tenants in council or housing association property, especially when that involves excessive noise. That issue worries many people yet is not given the attention that it deserves, because few hon. Members live in property that is affected by noisy or anti-social neighbours. When one's next neighbour is two acres away, it is much easier to ignore the problems caused by noise than in circumstances where the neighbour lives next door and plays a stereo in the early hours of the morning.
Mention has been made of the circumstances in which the court system can allow the intimidation of witnesses. However, the intimidation of witnesses before cases come to court is prevalent in many areas, and I am aware of little evidence that the Government are prepared to treat the problem seriously. One of the means of tackling the problem is housing transfer, but it is difficult to envisage how housing transfer can accommodate the justified fears that witnesses have, in circumstances where public housing is being cut so drastically.
I am aware that, in my area, people living in public sector housing have appeared as witnesses for the prosecution. Their evidence has been vital to the prosecution cases yet, the case having finished, they are now being tormented by the friends of the guilty and the council cannot find adequate accommodation into which to transfer them. In those circumstances the Government have a responsibility to tackle that issue seriously. I recognise that there is no simple solution, but the problem must be recognised.
Finally, the Government must consider the fact that prevention is better than cure. I have already mentioned the fact that crime breeds in situations of unemployment and poverty, and it is a cause of regret to me that, having been a councillor in part of the area that I now represent as a Member of Parliament, I have known many youngsters growing up in that community who, bereft of hope and prospects, have now turned into criminals. In many cases it was the best and brightest, with little chance of an apprenticeship and little chance of employment, who perhaps were not bright enough to go on to higher or further education. In some cases they were bright enough, but did not believe that higher or further education would guarantee them a job, and they realised that the people in their communities who were making the most money the fastest were those involved in drug dealing. To my regret, many of them have become involved in such practices. The Government have a responsibility—which they are too willing to ignore—to tackle the problem seriously. Many of the youngsters drift into crime—petty crime initially and more serious crime subsequently—because there is little alternative.
For the youths in my area, where the opening hours of community centres are being restricted and youth clubs are being closed, there is little alternative to hanging around on street corners. In those circumstances, the prospect of breaking into a chemist, a shop or a house is often more attractive than doing nothing. We live in a consumer society and such youngsters have aspirations the same as everyone else. They want money in their pocket and can see no legitimate way to achieve that. Regrettably, many of them—those with a bit of entrepreneurial flair—turn to crime. The Government cannot and should not continue to bury their head in the sand.
Public spending will be necessary to try to combat crime. I have been struck by the way in which target hardening in my district has helped to protect houses, shops and business premises against break-ins. The concierge systems and closed circuit television cameras have combined to reduce drastically the prevalence of crime in specific areas, but such measures are not cheap and the Government must be willing to invest some money in trying to cut the cost of crime. Otherwise, the Bill will simply reorganise and improve some aspects of court procedure, but will not tackle the real burdens of crime carried by many citizens.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. It seems strange to be debating the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill without Sir Nicholas behind me, egging me on and giving me the odd word of what he considered to be advice. I am sure that he is looking down on our proceedings today and shaking his head in disbelief that those of us who are left should have the temerity to tamper with his beloved Scottish legal system.
In placing before the House the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the Government send two clear, distinct messages. First, the passing of a specifically Scottish legal Act re-emphasises the uniqueness of the Scottish legal system, which we, north of the border, have always regarded as superior to that in England. Scotland's constitutional future appears to be the subject for almost daily deliberation and speculation in the pages of the newspapers. The fact that Scotland's legal system remains so distinctive and unique after almost 300 years of union, reiterates clearly that, far from the Union anglicising Scotland, it has given Scotland the identity and confidence to preserve and build on all that is distinctively and uniquely Scottish.
The Scottish legal system joins our education system and our national Church in helping to form the basis on which our national identity is founded. We in the House would never seek to change that. Our passionate defence of the Union is grounded in the firm belief that, through union, Scotland's nationhood and institutions have flourished. That today's debate takes place in the House of Commons underlines the fact that the correct and proper place in which to debate Scottish affairs is here in the sovereign Parliament of Scotland.
The second message from today's debate is that the Government remain determined to fight crime in every way that they can and to focus on driving fear from our streets and communities. My right hon. and hon. Friends

will be interested, although not surprised, to learn that a recent survey carried out in areas of my constituency showed that people's fear of crime remains one of their key concerns.
People realise that much has been done to tackle crime. There are more policemen on the streets—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, about 1,500 more than there were when the Conservative party came to power in 1979. Crime detection is at its highest level for five years. There are stiffer sentences for some offences and more powers for courts to deal with offenders. However, despite all those developments, many people still believe that the legal system often fails the very people whom it is designed to protect. It is self-defeating for the police to gather evidence and make arrests, if the court system does not deal with cases quickly and efficiently, and ensure that justice is seen to be done.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the House of the Bill's background—of the lengthy period of consultation that has involved the legal profession in Scotland, the police and, most importantly, the public, all uniting to create a coalition for change. In examining all aspects of the Scottish criminal justice system, from legal aid to juries, from sentencing to admissible evidence, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have drawn up a Bill that is balanced and thorough and commands a good deal of public and professional support.
Through a detailed and systematic review of the criminal justice system, the Government have ensured that Scots will continue to have respect for the law and to have confidence in the system. Our legal system works well. Nevertheless, it makes good sense to carry out a regular and full audit, and to evaluate whether the system is working as smoothly and fairly as we would all want. Through what my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has referred to in another place as an "overhaul", the Scottish criminal justice system is being prepared for the challenges of the new millennium. For those reasons, I warmly support the measures in the Bill, which will serve to reinforce public confidence in our justice system.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined the Bill's major aspects and I have no intention of prevailing upon the patience of the House by merely repeating what he said. I shall, however, comment briefly on a few aspects of the Bill. The introduction of intermediate diets will be welcomed throughout Scotland. People will see cases coming to court much more quickly than at present. The Government have often emphasised the duty to highlight the needs of victims and witnesses, rather than just the criminal. Intermediate diets will provide an opportunity for both the defence and the prosecution to agree upon matters relating to a case that are not in dispute. Any such measure, which avoids the need for a witness or victim to undergo the trauma of testimony face to face with a defendant, must be viewed as a welcome development.
The clauses designed to amend the appeals procedure will also free court time. It is entirely unacceptable for the court system to be snarled up by an endless conveyor belt of appeals. Of course, the right of appeal must remain an inalienable right in a modern, enlightened democracy. No one in the House would want the right of appeal to be denied to anyone with a deserving case, but we must be practical. The number of appeals coming before Scottish courts has nearly trebled over the past 10 years. More and 

more frequently, the court case and conviction, far from marking a conclusion to the legal process, merely mark the beginning of a fresh round of procedures, which are placing an intolerable strain on court time and the court system.
For many defendants, the decision to appeal is a knee-jerk reaction to conviction. Often, little or no consideration is given to the merits of an appeal. Too many appeals seem to be motivated by a triumph of hope over expectation—the clutching at straws over reality. I welcome the proposals to allow a judge to decide on the merits of an appeal before court time is wasted. Provided that safeguards remain to ensure that deserving cases are not dismissed prematurely, surely the proposals will meet with the support of hon. Members.
There are few aspects of our legal system that inflame public opinion more than that of the so-called bail bandit—the defendant out on bail who goes on to commit further offences. Recent research suggests that 12 per cent. of those out on bail commit further offences. That is entirely unacceptable; bail is a privilege, not a right. It should be an option only when it is believed that further offending is unlikely. A breach of that trust should carry a heavy penalty. The ability to add six months' imprisonment for bail offences, in addition to any sentence imposed, is most welcome.
The clauses extending the rights of Scottish courts to deprive offenders of the proceeds of their crimes follow the already strenuous efforts by the Government to ensure that law breaking is never rewarded. Both those measures send an unequivocal message to criminals that their behaviour will not be tolerated.
The recent introduction of fiscal fines to deal with minor drug offences has been widely welcomed as a constructive development to deal with the escalating drug problem. The Bill will extend the range of offences for which fiscal fines can be imposed. Some have misconstrued fiscal fines for minor drug-possession offences as turning a blind eye to wrongdoing—as almost tacitly condoning the practice. A few have even ventured the suggestion that it marks the effective legalisation of drugs. That is certainly not the case. In the same way, the offences for which fiscal fines will become available will not be regarded as lesser offences simply because the matter does not go to court.
Fiscal fines represent a reasoned and logical response to the clogged court system; they are not a green light for certain crimes and no one should consider them as such. If used sensibly, they will provide an effective tool for streamlining the court system and ensuring that a court spends its time deliberating serious and deserving cases rather than acting as a clearing house for petty offences.
However, we must never fall into the trap of the blanket use of fiscal fines. Each case must be viewed on its merits, as I believe that there will always be cases where the defendant should answer to a court. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's assurance that the system will allow the prosecutor to elect for a trial rather than impose a fiscal fine if he deems it appropriate.
The public will warmly welcome the development of sentencing guidelines. I have no wish to highlight specific examples of when a sentence imposed by a sheriff or judge has caused anger and upset to those involved with a case, and a sense of general bewilderment, anger and

sometimes outrage in the wider community. However, we are all familiar with such cases from the newspapers and from our mail.
Understandably, the media tend to highlight isolated examples of when justice has not been seen to be done. But of course, in highlighting the bad, the media obscure the many thousands of cases each year where conviction is followed by an appropriate sentence. Yet it is the few sensational examples of, shall we say, eccentric sentencing that undermine confidence in the entire criminal justice system.
The introduction of sentencing guidelines will serve an extremely useful function in attempting to eliminate the isolated cases where the punishment has clearly not fitted the crime. Of course, we must be mindful of the fact that sentencing guidelines can act only as an aid to sentencing in Scottish courts. I believe that the House never would or should sanction the introduction of sentencing rules. The sheriff or judge must retain a degree of autonomy and some room for manoeuvre in deciding upon an appropriate sentence. Flexibility and discretion are surely one reason why the Scottish legal system is admired throughout the world. Nevertheless, guidelines will be welcomed by those who are responsible for handing down sentences and they will assist in providing uniformity in the nature of sentences between courts.
I wish to remark briefly on the proposal to allow the prosecution to comment upon a defendant's silence during a trial. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the right to silence has long been a source of controversy within legal circles. As the House is aware, sweeping changes to the right to silence were contained within the criminal justice Act relating to England and Wales. The fact that the proposals that are before the House today are radically different from those relating to England and Wales provides a further illustration of the distinctive nature of the criminal justice system in Scotland and the way in which the House deals with it.
I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to the Scottish Office for carrying out such detailed consultation on options to amend or even to abolish the right to silence. The Conservative party defends stoutly the rights of the individual. We have always emphasised the need to protect and enhance individual freedoms and rights. For that reason, a decision to erode the rights of the individual in the eyes of the law would be taken only after a great deal of careful thought and consideration. I welcome the fact that the Bill proposes to retain the individual's right to silence, but allows the prosecutor, in turn, the right to highlight a defendant's silence. I believe that that strikes a balance between the rights of the individual and the desire to ensure that a correct verdict is reached in the court.
I am sure that the changes outlined in clause 28 will satisfy the majority of people in Scotland who feel that, if people have nothing to hide, they will lose nothing by responding to questions put to them in court. As jurors are currently able to consider the silence of a defendant in arriving at a verdict, the change merely clarifies the position and may help to persuade defendants to put their side of the story on record during a trial.
In conclusion, I would like to convey to the House the views of some of my constituents. Since my election to the House in 1992, I have been surprised by the number of letters that I have received from people who are the unfortunate victims of crime. In almost every case, the


person asks why the system always seems to be on the side of the criminal and why the victim is constantly neglected or subjected to further suffering, often through the need to testify in court.
There is no doubt that the Bill continues the process of redressing the balance away from the criminal and toward the victim. We welcome the fact that, through the Bill's provisions, many victims will be saved the ordeal of testifying. Similarly, victims will be reassured that the proceeds of crime are likely to be forfeited by the guilty party and that further crimes by an accused who is out on bail simply will not be tolerated.
In short, the Bill signals the Government's determination to continue to crack down on crime and on criminals. Crime affects every constituency in Scotland as well as those throughout the United Kingdom. A crime-free society is an unattainable ideal. However, by supporting the Bill, hon. Members can play a part in putting in place measures that will further strengthen the courts' ability to deal with crime and with criminals. The people of Scotland expect and they deserve nothing less.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has left his place temporarily because I wish to tell him that, even though few hon. Members are present for the debate, I am sure that I am not the only one who was impressed by the somewhat Churchillian flourish with which he began his comments on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. It leads one to believe that, on all those self-contained and self-disciplined occasions when the hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box, he had the capacity, even the desire, to engage in rhetorical flourish.
That reference to rhetorical flourish brings me inevitably to a subject about which comment has been made already in the debate—the absence of Sir Nicholas Fairbairn from our midst. According to the conventions of the House, I could not call him "my friend", but outside the House he was my friend for a very long time. Like many hon. Members, I mourn the fact that he is no longer with us to ensure, through his curious amalgamation of ridicule and intellectual rigour, that the attention of the House is focused upon the detail of a measure such as the Bill.
Those of us who sat through the debates on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in the summer of 1990 will remember that as probably Sir Nicholas's finest hour—to use a Churchillian phrase—as he subjected the Minister, and indeed the whole Committee, to a full-frontal intellectual assault and, on occasion, made the Government's proposals look threadbare and second rate. It is a great pity that he will not be able to do that again on this and on other occasions.
With Sir Nicholas's passing, I believe that I am the only remaining practising member of the Faculty of Advocates in the House. Therefore, I declare an interest in the debate as the matters with which we are concerned might, on occasion, form part of the consideration of someone who is practising in the Scottish criminal courts.
Any opportunity to discuss the criminal law of Scotland should be welcomed by hon. Members. I do not exempt members of my own party from what I am about to say: I think that the poverty of attendance in the Chamber is a sad reflection on the seriousness with which people regard an important issue of this kind.
The Secretary of State began his remarks by drawing the attention of the House to some statistical information which he thought reflected well upon the Government's policies. He would do well to bear in mind the repeated warnings of Dr. Ian Oliver, the chief constable of Grampian—who has a robust reputation in such matters—that crime figures are notoriously unreliable as indicators of the true level of crime in society. The House would also do well to recall that, according to the most recently issued figures, crime in the category which includes vandalism and fireraising has risen by 5 per cent. Crimes of violence have risen by 2 per cent. and crimes in the category which includes drug offences have risen by 7 per cent. I do not think that those figures, which reflect specific areas of criminal behaviour, entitle any of us to enjoy a sense of comfort or achievement.
The Secretary of State also referred to the Bill's history. It is true that there have been consultation papers. It is a matter of judgment, but I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that the Bill which is now before the House has sprung from a systematic overall review of the Scottish criminal system. I particularly regret the fact that, whereas in the early 1970s, we had the benefit of a committee, the distinguished chairman of which was the late Lord Thomson, and two helpful and far-reaching reports, on this occasion we had no such assistance.
As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the Bill is a clear example of legislative proposals that should be scrutinised in a domestic Parliament. When people seek to draw distinctions between Scotland and that which may be available to Northern Ireland, it is often left out of account that Scotland's domestic law system is the only one in western Europe that lacks its own legislature. This debate may emphasise that as much as anything that I can say, but it is a compelling argument for a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
These proceedings would also be better informed if we had taken evidence, as has been done with the Children (Scotland) Bill, from practitioners in Scotland, including the Faculty of Advocates; the Glasgow Bar Association, whose political complexion is neither here nor there; the Law Society of Scotland; the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties; the chief constables and the Police Federation. They are concerned daily with problems that we debate in abstract because, with few exceptions, we have no day-to-day experience of them—so our consideration of the Bill is necessarily flawed.
The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill will be cost neutral, meaning that no additional resources will be made available. How many cases reported by the police to the procurator fiscal are marked "No pro"—that is, no proceedings—each year? Once proceedings have begun, and how many cases are dropped each year? Those statistics will give some indication of the extent to which anecdotal evidence that claims that the system is overburdened is justified.
Why are there temporary judges of the High Court of Justiciary? Why do more individuals hold commissions as temporary sheriffs than hold commissions as full-time sheriffs? The strength of the Scottish system is that it has been based on full-time, professional judges—unlike' England and Wales, which use lay magistrates to far greater extent. If the Government are so committed to maintaining the Scottish legal system, why is increasing reliance placed on temporary High Court judges or


temporary sheriffs? If commissions are justified, that can be only because work exists and judges are required to deal with it.
If we embark on a system in which intermediate diets play a fuller part and judicial examination may be extended in the way proposed, that will do nothing other than impact on judicial time. It seems self-evident that if the proposals are to work, additional resources will be required.
There was extended debate in the other place about victims. After 27 years of practising law in Scotland, I have reached the view that we have not in the past dealt properly with the victims of crime. I am wholly committed to the network of victim support agencies that has developed, not least in my constituency. Victim support is a separate and distinct function, and best done through the voluntary network now in place. Victims are assisted by clear information on the nature of procedures, scheduling of cases and their outcome. It is important to remember that all prosecutions in Scotland are brought in the public interest by the Lord Advocate, with the assistance of the procurator fiscal system. Private prosecution is extremely rare in Scotland. Our system does not have any principle of self-help or anything that might be thought to impinge on revenge. Other systems do.
I am worried that suggestions of consulting victims or even juries about penalties, which had some currency in the other place, move away from our legal system's objective and public interest nature. Sentencing must be the responsibility of judges. It must not be exercised in a vacuum. There must be proper training of judges on sentencing at all levels. They must not be bound by a tariff, as some suggest, but be aware of prevailing levels. The Bill's proposals in that respect are perfectly acceptable. Sentencing must be subject also to the supervision of the High Court—which, in the determination of appeals, may find itself able to give the guidance that is necessary for judges of inferior courts.
The essential feature is that every case must be determined on its merits. We must remember that reports of court proceedings that we receive from constituents, read in newspapers, see on television or hear on radio do not always reveal the whole circumstances of the case put before the court. Sentences must be judged objectively, not by the reactions of newspapers, Members of Parliament, victims or their families.
The Bill's complexity is almost overwhelming. Some hon. Members will be familiar with the principle, "Ignorantia iuris neminem excusat"—ignorance of the law excuses no man. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think that that principle is important, I suggest that you read clause 37 and then ask yourself whether you are sufficiently seized of the Government's proposals to be certain that you understand the law in Scotland on the particular matters that clause concerns. The argument for simplification or codification is overwhelming. If we are to say to people that ignorance of the law is no defence, we have an overwhelming obligation to ensure that the law is readily understood, and not just by lawyers.
The Bill is welcome for attempting to create a more efficient system of justice. The provisions to obtain agreement on non-contentious evidence are entirely laudable, and the intermediate diet procedure seems a sensible extension of a principle that has been in operation in other parts of the system. The Bill seeks to amend bail

provisions, and that justifies further discussion in Committee. I may have views about certain details of those proposals. To the extent that the Bill implements proposals of the Scottish Law Commission on confiscation and forfeiture, that, too, is welcome.
The hon. Member for Hamilton prayed in aid two authorities to support his views on the not proven verdict. The first was Sir Walter Scott. Anyone who read reviews of the most recent biography of Sir Walter, some of which were to be found in the weekend newspapers, may take the view for the moment that Sir Walter is not an authority on which one could place much reliance. In any event, as so much of that which is written about Sir Walter is apocryphal, it is the opinion of many people that he was driven to write the Waverley novels because he could not earn a living at the Scottish Bar. If that be so, his somewhat dismissive reference to the not proven verdict may not help much.
The hon. Member for Hamilton also referred to the English royal commission, which rejected the verdict of not proven in what one might describe as dismissive terms. We should remember, however, that the English commission was dealing with a system that requires a verdict of 10 to two to convict. That is entirely different from the Scottish system. Any change to the three existing verdicts could not, I believe, be properly effected in isolation, because we should then have to consider whether a system in which a person could be found guilty by eight votes to seven on a jury of 15 provided sufficient protection in the absence of the not proven verdict.
I accept that, on these occasions, anecdote is much more likely to triumph than objectivity, but it is my personal view and experience that the not proven verdict is a necessary protection in a system in which a person may be convicted by the odd vote in 15. It is also a sophisticated verdict; the jury expresses itself unwilling to give a certificate of credibility to the accused.
A woman in my constituency made a complaint about a sexual offence. She went to court and was subjected to the kind of harrowing and—sometimes inevitably—unpleasant cross-examination which accompanies cases of this sort. In the end, the verdict was not proven. Afterwards she told me that that verdict had allowed her to leave the court with a certain sense of dignity. Had the verdict been not guilty, it would have meant that she had not been believed.
We can speculate about the reasons why people will or will not come forward, depending on what they think the outcome of a case may be, but when sexual offences are alleged I believe that the not proven verdict is often an extremely important part of the system. It should not be cast aside lightly.
We should not change these verdicts out of a sense of sympathy with the outrage that victims or their families may feel. One understands why people feel aggrieved by the result of criminal trials, but my judgment is that people who are offended by a verdict of not proven are hardly likely to be less offended if the verdict is one of not guilty.

Mr. George Robertson: This appears to be a rerun of debates that have taken place elsewhere, although I appreciate that some hon. Members may not have heard them before.
In my defence, I should point out that Lord Wheatley and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) are two contemporary figures whose views substantiate the point that I was making about not proven—if Sir Walter Scott is not to be taken as a contemporary source.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the case that I outlined this afternoon was not based on any particular trial in which the family of a victim was left aggrieved—although such cases do exist? My point is that the not proven verdict is just as unfair to the accused, who leaves with a stain on his or her character, as it is to the aggrieved victims, who may feel that justice has not been done.

Mr. Campbell: I have represented a number of accused people who—because of or despite the defence that I have mounted on their behalf—have had their cases found not proven. Not one of them has ever complained to me about the nature of the verdict. The hon. Gentleman may attach importance to the question of stains on the characters of accused people, but those in receipt of such verdicts do not apparently attach quite so much importance to it. I was not trying to argue ad hominem, except to say that I think that issues of this kind cannot be considered in isolation or in the abstract. If this proposal is to be discussed in Committee, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may have to come up with other amendments then, designed to put his proposals for the not proven verdict into the broader context which they undoubtedly deserve.
I have been puzzled by the claim that the abolition of the peremptory objection and the abolition of the need to state a juror's occupation on the jury list will enhance the administration of justice. In place of the peremptory objection, we are offered the institution of something that may be described as a joint application for excusal. That may embrace more problems than it seeks to solve. What if, for instance, there is an intransigent agent or advocate for the defence? What about an intransigent prosecutor? In the real world one hopes that neither will be intransigent, but the fact is that people may take a concluded professional view in respect of an excusal, based on an analysis of what seems to them best for the prosecution or for the defence. In such circumstances agreement will not be possible; nor, therefore, will a joint application for excusal be possible.
I am sorry to note that the hon. Member for Eastwood is no longer here, but I point out that the fact that a person may have a particular occupation may give rise to an apprehension—not necessarily in the minds of the professionals engaged in the defence—on the part of the accused person that the person with that occupation will not be entirely objective. Let us imagine a case in which it is alleged that someone has attacked a postman on his rounds. The accused, who is entitled, as we have often heard, to a presumption of innocence, is likely to think that having a postman on the jury will give rise to an apprehension that objectivity will be difficult to achieve.
Another illustration—I am afraid that this often happens now—concerns a doctor to whose local surgery a false call has been put through and who is then ambushed by someone lying in wait for him to steal his drugs. Here again there might be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the ambusher that objectivity would he difficult to achieve if a doctor served on the jury.
The retention of the peremptory objection is thus a legitimate power in the hands of the defence, and it does no damage to the administration of justice.
Much has been made of the position of the accused at judicial examination and at trial in circumstances when he or she gives no evidence. There has, I think, been an understandable but flawed tendency to run the two issues together. They are quite separate, and they raise separate considerations. If enacted as drafted, clause 10 will turn judicial examination into something that may not quite justify the conclusion that it is an inquisitorial hearing, but it will have rather more of that character than has perhaps been appreciated hitherto.
An accused person may well be vulnerable at the time, because judicial examination follows hard upon a person being taken into custody. The accused is vulnerable because he or she is confused, apprehensive, upset and even frightened: and because at this stage he or she may have no knowledge of the facts on which the prosecution intends to proceed. That absence of knowledge may be shared by the defence solicitor.
As matters stand, the solicitor who appears on behalf of an accused person at judicial examination has no right to object to any of the questions—so a protection available at trial will not be available at the time of the judicial examination. The position of a solicitor will be difficult, either because the accused may be forced to answer questions that might ultimately prejudice the defence, or because the accused, on the advice of the solicitor, will say nothing, and that failure to comment may be relied on at a later stage. For a solicitor brought in at short notice, with little knowledge at this stage of the nature of the prosecution's case, it will create an intolerable professional burden.
There is no need for those provisions. I have yet to be convinced that there is any utility attached to them.
Clause 28 raises a different issue. At the moment, at least, I am open minded about it. If a prosecutor is given the right to refer to the fact that the accused has not given evidence, the accused should have had by that stage the benefit of legal advice—tactical and sometimes strategic—on whether it would be right to give evidence. The facts will be known because the evidence will have been led. A conscious decision will have been made not to give evidence. At that stage, both in summary proceedings and solemn proceedings—that is to say, before a judge and jury—the defence will have had the opportunity to make a motion that there is no case to answer.
The provisions of clause 28 raise a different issue from those that are contained in clause 10. There is at least scope for putting the Government to the test of establishing that what they propose in clause 28 is justified. I can say as someone who has prosecuted, but not in recent time, that it was never difficult for the prosecutor to find a form of words that conveyed to the jury precisely the point with which the clause is designed to deal. For example, the prosecutor might say, "Ladies and gentlemen, you might have benefited if you had heard other explanations of what took place, but you have heard only the explanation of the victim." He might make the same comments and then say, "You have heard only from the two police officers who saw what was happening." Such comments are legitimate under the present system. On that footing it may be difficult to maintain as stoutly


as some have that what is proposed in clause 28 is damaging and dangerous. Clause 10 is of a different category.
References have been made to miscarriages of justice. Although he is not in his place, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), who conducted a most responsible and informed campaign on behalf of one of his constituents, Mr. Raymond Gilmour. I had the benefit of reading all the public papers that are attached to that case. This is not an occasion for going into its merits, but it is worth reminding ourselves—even those of us who are so impressed by the quality of the Scottish legal system—that cases of that type do arise from time to time, which raises apprehension both inside and outside the legal profession as to whether a just verdict has been achieved.
As I have already said in an intervention, the Lord Justice-General and the Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland have taken different views about the existing statutory provisions that relate to the availability of evidence on appeal and which might have been thought to be available at the time of a trial such as that of Raymond Gilmour. I refer to the matter in passing because it shows that there is no such thing as judicial infallibility. It may even demonstrate in a quite compelling way that if the two senior judges in Scotland are at odds on such an issue, the need for early legislation relating to alleged miscarriages of justice and the availability of evidence is paramount.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to some solicitors who, he said, persuaded clients to plead not guilty until the last moment. No doubt there are some—I would not suggest that there is none. It is often difficult, however, to persuade an accused person to plead guilty, even if the evidence is overwhelming. In some cases there are difficult questions of law that have to be the subject of careful consideration. In other cases difficult issues arise about the availability of witnesses and whether witnesses will stick with the version of events that they may have given either to the prosecution or to the defence. Late pleas of guilty, damaging though they are to the administration of justice and dissipating of funds and valuable court time, are not necessarily always to be explained by the notion of greedy lawyers seeking to protract proceedings to line their own pockets.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the powers of licensing boards. I declare an interest because I have a particular professional interest. There is scope for some amendment to the law that allows the boards the opportunity, when they decide to suspend a liquor licence, to act at least on an interim basis. Once an appeal has been marked against such a suspension, it should be possible for the board to go to the sheriff to argue that until the appeal is determined the licence should not be allowed to operate. At present, once an appeal is marked, all the previous proceedings are suspended and someone whose licence may have been suspended under section 31 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 may continue gaily operating his licence until such time as the local sheriff has dealt with the appeal. That is a matter to which further consideration should be given. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley raised the matter because of recent events in Ayr.
There are some things about the Bill that are to be welcomed but there are others that are not entitled to the same reception. The weakness of the Bill is that there does not appear to be any discernible scheme behind it. It carries more than a hint of doing something or anything to meet a tide of public opinion that is increasingly anxious about the nature of criminal activity in Scotland. The Bill is undoubtedly capable of improvement in Committee. If it reaches that stage, I hope that it will receive such improvement.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak. I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). His contributions to Bills of this sort are important and welcome. As has been said, I am sure that we all miss the wit and wisdom of my late Friend, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. Both he and the hon. and learned Gentleman brought valuable hands-on experience to Scottish legal Bills. I do not have that experience but I welcome the Bill for two reasons.
First, I welcome the Bill because on the basis of public confidence there are areas of the law that must be considered fairly regularly so that we can keep pace with public concern. There will be opportunities during our consideration of the Bill—I hope to be able to make use of them—to table amendments on sentencing policy. I am a great believer in deterrent sentencing. That is not the only vehicle to be considered but it is an important one when it comes to recognising and meeting concerns.
It is important to recognise, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has said, that the judiciary is not infallible. Mistakes will occur. We must expect that and so we must have a system that addresses it. We must recognise also that there can be technical malfunctions in the way in which a court is administered and run. I can think of a recent instance where a jury was confused. That confusion led to sentencing problems. That is another issue that may call for amendments.
Secondly, I welcome the Bill because it is designed to tighten bail provisions. There is great concern that those who are given bail offend again. I welcome the fact that we are retaining the not proven verdict. It is a valuable provision in Scotland. If a jury is not satisfied that a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt but it is not satisfied that the accused is not guilty, the parties can leave court at least knowing that the case has not been proven one way or the other. That is important. I also welcome the fact that we shall consider in Committee the important question of how people can or cannot be drawn into answering questions.
As I said, my speech is very brief because I hope to use the opportunity in Committee—like most Scottish Conservative Members, I expect that I shall have no option but to be in Committee—to table and speak to amendments on important points in the Bill.

Mr. Mike Watson: As an hon. Member who represents an inner-city constituency, I know only too well and come into regular contact with many of the activities to which hon. Members of all parties have referred, not least the tragic toll of deaths relating to drug taking. There were 95 such deaths in 1994


in the Strathclyde region, many, I am sorry to say. in my constituency. My constituency, like many other inner-city constituencies, also witnessed various other violent activities such as attacks on the person, often unprovoked and, apparently, for no reason. There is also a considerable amount of car crime, burglary, sexual attacks—sadly—and of course the increasingly visible effects of domestic violence, which is prevalent throughout society.
All those crimes in my constituency go hand in hand with many of the effects of an appalling standard of living, to which many of my constituents are condemned. In many cases that standard of living means that my constituents have to put up with appalling housing, which is very badly maintained, frequently damp and badly repaired. Of course increasing numbers of young people are unable even to obtain such housing. There is high unemployment and another sad death toll every winter of old-age pensioners who are unable adequately to heat their accommodation.
All that adds up to a picture of which no Government can be proud. It would be unfair to blame it entirely on the Government, although it would be equally fatuous to suggest that they had no part to play and that they were not, in some respect, responsible. I concede that many of the conditions will continue to exist under a Labour Government, but the question is: how will we respond? One of the ways in which to respond is to ensure that the police are adequately resourced.
An astonishing statistic was revealed in Strathclyde last month, when Leslie Sharp, the much respected chief constable, announced that the full complement of staff for his force had reached some 4,200. That was astonishing because that level was set in 1974, during the previous round of local government reorganisation, when Strathclyde region came into being. In the 20 or more years since the region was established, that level had never been met and there had never been a full complement of police officers, despite the fact that I and other hon. Members who represented the Strathclyde region were often lobbied by Leslie Sharp and his predecessor and, that we, in turn, lobbied Scottish Office Ministers for adequate resources to enable the police to do the job demanded of them. It was, however, a false dawn because this month, after that announcement, the figure has again fallen blow complement. Due to national wastage, retirement and non-filling of vacancies, Leslie Sharp's police force is again below its full complement and he does not have sufficient officers for the many difficult and trying jobs which face them.
It is not simply that Strathclyde regional council has been profligate with its resources. Goodness knows, it is short of resources in so many ways, as the Secretary of State knows well since he has heard myself, other colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) specifically speak on local authority funding in recent weeks.
Nor is it sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that the local authority has the resources that it needs to carry out its functions and to give police adequate staff to carry out their job. Patently, they do not have sufficient resources. Of course I welcome and commend falling crime figures, which to a large extent result from increased police activity, but every time that I meet police officers—representing a city-centre constituency, I cover

a number of divisions in the city of Glasgow and meet regularly with the police—they consistently return to the question of resources.
One of the questions that we should be asking in this debate is: why does crime continue to flourish? I am aware of the figures which have been quoted, but, none the less, a considerable number of people do very well out of criminal activities, often at the hands of those people who can least afford it. Parents regularly come to my surgeries or write to me in despair asking what can be done; why cannot the police put a stop to crime and why are the local peddlers of drugs on the street corner well known to everyone in the community, yet—apparently—the police are unable to act and arrest them?
I know that the sellers on the street corner are not the major problem; they are the visible aspect only of the problem. None the less, it is difficult to explain to my constituents that the resources to deal with crime in the community are available when, in many cases, petty criminals are well known and appear to flourish and act impudently in their own area.
A major factor to consider in fighting crime is its root causes. I am aware that that argument does not carry much weight with Conservative Members, but the causes of crime are frequently economic or socio-economic. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) highlighted the difficulty that he has encountered in his constituency, which is replicated in—I suspect—hundreds of constituencies, including those of Conservative Members. It is not simply enough to say that people get themselves into such difficulty. Not many trainee chartered accountants or law students or young self-employed people are involved in crime. Nor, indeed, are many apprentice bricklayers or hairdressers indulging in crime, drugs and such activities. Nor is it simply a working-class or middle-class phenomenon. By and large, people indulge in crime because they have little else to do. I am aware that that is a generalisation, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree.
Any democratic and caring society ought to be able to provide the chance to get a decent education, training which will lead to a job, a decent house and the ability to establish a permanent relationship and—one hopes—raise a family in the belief that our children will have a reasonable opportunity to build a life for themselves. Today's society is unable to provide those chances and those opportunities are plainly absent from the lives of too many young people. It is a mere pipe dream for them. As a result, many seek escape through the crime to which I have referred, especially—sadly—relating to drugs. The attendant crime necessary to finance such activity has all sorts of spin-off effects.
I am not offering that dearth of opportunity as an excuse for the lawlessness which is increasingly evident among young people; I am simply suggesting that it is part of the explanation and must be taken into account. We cannot tackle crime without tackling the causes of it. A strong and sustainable economy, which provides training, jobs and hope is much more likely to turn young people away from crime than any amount of police resources or any amount of community activities even though they have, of course, a part to play.
The Bill is about changing the law and not simply about dealing with crime and how to respond to it, important though that is. I hope that the Bill is also about improving the law; moving it forward and making it more relevant


to the 1990s and beyond the millennium. Like all hon. Members, I recognise the expertise and vast experience of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He outlined a number of ways in which the Bill could have improved the law of Scotland, but has missed the opportunity to do so.
I shall highlight a specific area in which the law could be improved, which relates to a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a year and a week ago this evening.
The debate that stirred up the greatest amount of public interest in respect of that legislation concerned new clause 3 which dealt with the age of consent in relation to homosexual acts in private. That debate produced a change in the law. The age of consent was reduced from 21 to 18 although moves to reduce it to 16 were defeated by a majority of 27 votes. An overwhelming majority of 265 were in favour of decreasing the age to 18 and that is now the law.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill offers an opportunity to carry that law forward and, in a sense, to take the next step towards the logical conclusion of the progress in last year's debate. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to rehearse the arguments for an equal age of consent for all, but I believe that it is totally illogical to have an age of consent of 16 for heterosexuals and 18 for male homosexuals.
I want to concentrate on the Scottish aspect of that debate because Scottish Members made their views very clear in the debate last year. Fifty-three of the 72 Scottish Members, the hon. Members who have a particular interest in the Bill that we are discussing today, voted in favour of the age of 16, and 17 voted against that age. There have been changes since last year's debate and new Members for constituencies elsewhere in the United Kingdom would affect attitudes towards an age of consent of 16 if the matter were voted upon again. I hope that this Bill will allow us an opportunity to do that.
In 1991, the Crown Office in Scotland instituted a review of the prosecution policy on consenting homosexual acts. At that time, the Crown Office issued a circular to procurators fiscal—circular No. 2025/1—instructing them that in a reported case of sex between men
where both of the participants are over 16 but one or both are under 18 and the act appears to have been consensual and in private
procurators fiscal should report the case to the Crown Office for consideration by Crown counsel. Only two cases have been reported in the four years since then. The instruction was reconfirmed in June 1994, but the Crown Office has stated that the review of policy is continuing.
After the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Outright Scotland—the lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organisation—approached Lothian and Borders police specifically about their policy on pursuing private consenting sexual acts between men over 16. Lothian and Borders police have confirmed publicly that
such investigations appear nowhere on our list of priorities.
However, they said that if a complaint were received from a member of the public, they would be bound to investigate.
Although the law is not being upheld actively by the police or the Crown Office, young gay men remain at risk of police investigation brought on by a complaint to the

police by anyone, be that a neighbour or an unfriendly acquaintance. The current law brands young gay men as second-class citizens from the age of 16 and it acts to discourage many young gay people from seeking the advice and help that they need from their parents, doctors, teachers or the police.
The question of whether there should be an equal age of consent is not simply a matter of equality: it is a matter of human rights and of civil rights. It is wrong, and ultimately unsustainable, that young gay men should be criminalised and stigmatised for doing what their heterosexual friends do perfectly legally—that is, making love with a partner of their choice.
Many of our European Union partners are considerably ahead of us in terms of legislation with regard to the age of consent. Many of us have a great deal of good will towards Ireland, but with the best will in the world we would not categorise Ireland as a liberal country. However, Ireland has an equal age of consent at 17 which is ahead of the United Kingdom.
It is somewhat ironic that the playwright Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years in Reading gaol almost exactly 100 years ago in May 1895, but discrimination against gay men is still effectively legalised. Stonewall carried out a survey of 2,000 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals which found that 8 per cent. had been sacked from their employment, 48 per cent. had been harassed and 68 per cent. were not fully confident enough to talk about their sexuality at work for fear of the consequences. It is appalling that, in 1995, people should be afraid to be open about their sexuality because they fear for their jobs.
As I have said, an age of consent of 18 still criminalises young men when the law claims that it is actually there to protect them. The stark fact is that the law as it stands does not act as a deterrent. As has been demonstrated, there exists among the police neither the will nor the ability to enforce that law effectively.
It should be self-evident that the criminal law should have no role in matters of private morality where consenting adults are concerned. Scots law has often been ahead of its English and Welsh counterparts, as other hon. Members have said. I suggest that it should take the lead again. When this Bill enters Committee, I hope that an amendment will be tabled which will allow the House to vote on the age of consent.
I do not see it as a matter of Scotland having a different age of consent from the rest of the United Kingdom. I see Scotland as simply moving one step ahead because it is clear, on the basis of the vote a year ago, that when the matter comes before the House as it affects England and Wales, as well as Scotland, the vote in favour of 16 will be carried. This Bill offers an opportunity for Scots law to move ahead and to give a lead. I very much hope that such a lead will be taken in Committee.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I would like to give a last salute to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. This debate would have been a perfect medium for his expertise, experience and wit which could skewer as well as edify at times. We are all the poorer for the loss of his very individual contributions to this particular subject and to other debates in the House.
The Bill is basically a general review of the mechanism through which crime is dealt at judicial level and measures for robbing criminals of the proceeds of their crimes. While I have specific reservations about the Bill, I welcome attempts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Scottish criminal justice system.
It is essential that justice is enhanced through the elimination of waste and inefficiency where that is practicable. Hence the aspects of non-contentious evidence and pre-trial procedure can be improvements, but they are predicated on adequate resources being available. As ever, with this Government, that would leave a question mark over the proposals.
With regard to resources, I noticed that the Law Society of Scotland points out that
a quantitative estimate of the general resource implications of many of these proposals is to be found in Chapter 14 of the Consultation Paper 'The Review of Criminal Evidence and Criminal Procedure'".
Will the Government make available the information on which that estimate is based? Without the requisite resources, the hopes of the reforms will not be delivered. Will the Minister make clear the financial calculations on which the proposals are predicated?
My reservations are based on my wish to ensure justice and to protect the rights of any accused person to a fair trial. I am concerned about clause 10 and I ask the Government to think again about it. It would allow the fiscal to question an accused at the examination before the sheriff in such a way as to extract a confession of guilt. That transforms the judicial examination into a form of investigative hearing more akin to an inquisitional procedure. That strikes at the very heart of the existing Scottish system and would swing the balance very much against the accused. That is a fundamental sea change in the approach of Scots law.
Admissions at judicial examination would give more power to the prosecution to try to achieve an early conviction. That is part of the cost-cutting exercise implicit in the Bill. The measure would put unjust and undue pressure on the accused at a time when that person has had little or no time to consult the defence agent. That challenges the Scottish legal position of emphasis on the need for the prosecution to prove its case as opposed to the accused having to establish his or her innocence.
Although the pre-trial right to silence is not challenged in the Bill as yet, clause 10 opens the door for future movement in that direction. I am concerned that although the need for comprehensive legislation to tackle the criminal justice system has long been recognised, we have been presented with a piecemeal Bill. The consultation period ended a fortnight before publication of the Bill, leaving little time for the consideration and incorporation of changes influenced by the consultation process—and it shows.
Although some proposals, particularly those put forward by the Scottish Law Commission, make good practical sense, other measures such as clause 10 appear to be a trade-off of civilised justice provisions for cheap political ends, with the danger that no practical benefits will accrue either to the Treasury or to the public.
The Government's proposals will create some practical problems for the system. The already enormous pressures on procurators fiscal can only be exacerbated by the introduction of compulsory intermediate diets in all summary cases and the reintroduction of the failed

expedient of first diet in all solemn cases in the sheriff court. When those are added to the other proposed duties, which will also affect the defence, it will be obvious that less and less time will be available for the preparation of cases, which will lead to greater inefficiency and to potential injustice. I should like to hear the Minister address those practical problems.
The Scottish National party certainly welcomes the tightening up of the law regarding the granting of bail in serious cases, but it fears that the bail provisions generally are merely examples of tinkering with the system. If the Government go ahead with clause 10, I shall seek Law Society of Scotland safeguards, for example on the line of questioning which allows the right of the defence solicitor to object and the opportunity for the judge to interrupt, and for further detailed disclosure of the statement of facts and the line of inquiry being used by the prosecution at the judicial examination. I hope to hear the Minister talk about what safeguards will be available to the accused in such cases.
The Government must address the serious problem of the lack of time available for the defence at the time of a judicial inquiry. That matter cannot be glossed over, because it is a practical matter and it is essential to protect the right of the accused.
Clause 28, which relates to the right to silence, is an attack on civil liberties and again challenges the accusatorial nature of the Scottish criminal justice system. Various arms of the legal profession have stated that there is no need to change the right to silence provision, but the Government have ignored them in order to comply with the English law and order agenda.
Sentence discounting is plain injustice. I should like to hear the Minister try to justify it. The sentence should reflect the nature of the crime and the situation of the criminal, and it should not be conditioned by the time that the plea is made. There is an obvious attempt to save money by encouraging early pleading, but it challenges and undermines the basis of sentencing procedure. Why should the admission of guilt entitle a criminal to a lesser sentence than that for someone who exercises the right to go to trial? That suggests the Government's willingness to apply softer sentences to save money with early pleading.
The Government state that the legislation will be costneutral, but I question that. If the provisions, particularly those in respect of intermediate diets, are to work, there will need to be measures to alleviate overworked and understaffed procurator fiscal offices. In addition, the legal aid fund will be required to meet the increase in defence expenses which will result. How does the Minister plan to bolster the procurator fiscal staff and the legal aid fund?
I am concerned also that there is no mention of the rights of victims, although the consultation papers specifically refer to the need to provide for victims' needs. I ask the Minister to address that problem urgently.
There is no provision to address miscarriages of justice, even though, again, the need to address the appeal system in Scotland has long been recognised.
There is merit in many of the proposals to speed up the criminal justice system and make it more efficient. I welcome the proposals to reduce needless attendance at court by police and other witnesses—a much needed reform. I also welcome the fact that criminals will be


deprived of the proceeds of their crimes. Nevertheless, I register my extreme concern about major specific provisions, and I hope that the Minister will address them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: From the day in 1974 when Nicky Fairbairn arrived in the House as the new hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, and he told us that he was here entirely as a matter of the personal vote that he had got—he scraped in by the thinnest of majorities—he was a friend of mine. We never had a cross word between us. It has stretched our imaginations that it was entirely a matter of the personal vote that had got him here. We thought that it was less than likely that, in their thousands, Conservatives of Perthshire would have preferred to vote for Nicholas Fairbairn than for Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
Be that as it may, even though our imaginations were stretched to capacity, Nicky Fairbairn did many of us great personal kindnesses. I prefer to remember him not for the funny, the bizarre or the outrageous that have been the subject of many obituaries, but for his willingness to give legal advice in difficult personal cases. Many of my colleagues and contemporaries had to go to him for legal advice. His legal advice was often very sound and with great insight. At least three of my West Lothian constituents have considerable cause to be grateful not to me as their Member of Parliament but to Nicholas Fairbairn for the unstinting, free legal advice that he gave people regardless of party. For that and many other reasons, he will be unforgettable.
I ask the Minister to address the question that was posed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Why, on this occasion, is it not thought right to have evidence from, say, the Law Society, the Police Federation, the Glasgow Bar Association and many other bodies? The hon. and learned Gentleman is now the only Scottish lawyer among us—that used not to be the case—and many of us need instruction in such matters. Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State not used the opportunity to put into operation the new procedure by which the Committee—this is not a highly partisan measure—can be better informed on obviously difficult issues? I, for one, if I am selected to sit on the Committee, have no intention of stringing out matters, but there is an argument for some serious questioning, particularly of the police and the Law Society. I ask for a reply.
I ask the House to forgive me for raising a matter which might be considered to be a bit local, but, in Linlithgow and in Ayr, it really is extremely unsatisfactory that defence and prosecution witnesses are mixed up together in unsatisfactory buildings. Incidentally, I say as a local that there may be fire risks in the Linlithgow building. I do not say that lightly, because that is the opinion of lawyers as well as myself. In that case—it can be generalised—I ask that new facilities be provided outside my constituency. Hon. Members normally ask that a certain facility should go to the area that they represent. On this occasion, I am absolutely in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that it would be much more sensible to concentrate the whole court procedure, lock stock and barrel, near the police in Livingston.
I know that Ministers will immediately say, "You are asking for more money; where are the resources to come from? You know very well how difficult the whole public expenditure issue is." But they themselves know that I met Jim Keegan, who represents solicitors in the entire Livingston-West Lothian area. Mr. Keegan suggested—expressing, I gather, the unanimous view of the colleagues on whose behalf he spoke—that there was a case for a new court building in Livingston.
A proposition for the financing of such a building by developers has been advanced. I do not wish to detain the House by giving the details, but the proposition should at least be considered. I understand that it is neutral in public expenditure terms, and would not call on Government finances. In fact, it would save a great deal of money: the developers speak of a distinguished building which, heaven knows, the new town could do with, and which could lessen a problem that bothers everyone, as the debate has shown—the squandering of police time. That could represent a considerable saving. At present, policemen are having to travel from Livingston to Linlithgow—incidentally, 90 per cent. of the difficulties occur in the south of the area, not in Linlithgow—and all that travelling time upsets police schedules.
The Lothian and Borders police F division has a civilised habit of inviting local Members of Parliament to lunch each January to talk over problems. I have discussed with them, in detail, the difficulties of police schedules and time off, and how difficult it is to deal with the fact that policemen may suddenly find that—regardless of their rotas—they must attend court. Hon. Members may not consider such practical problems to be the most momentous issue in the world, but they are extremely costly in practice. If the Minister cannot respond in his winding-up speech, I ask the Government at least to write to me about the specific issue of Livingston, possibly in the general context of the Bill's implications.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress has expressed its views on clause 12. Although its suggested amendment will be raised in Committee, I think it important enough to warrant mention now, so I shall set down a marker. The STUC wishes to insert the following words in the clause:
In all cases, it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to make available to the accused all material relating to the charge or charges against the accused in the possession of the prosecutor; and such material shall include all statements, reports and productions in the possession of the prosecutor whether he intends to found upon them in the prosecution of the accused or not.
In Scotland, the Crown can conceal evidence that could help to clear an accused person. In a Scottish appeal case heard in May 1990, Lord Cowie said:
there is no obligation on the Crown to disclose any information in their possession which would tend to exculpate the accused".
The Lord Advocate subsequently confirmed that the Crown was under no legal obligation to disclose information to the defence. He stated, however, that
the overriding principle is that the Crown must always act in the interests of justice…The overall aim should be to ensure that the true facts of any case are laid before a judge or jury".
In such an important matter, it is essential for there to be clear and binding rules. We cannot depend on that principle.
I did not raise that issue just because the STUC has raised it; it is at the forefront of my mind. A question that I have tabled, which will receive a written answer on Monday 6 March—question 13N—asks the Secretary of State for Scotland


what consideration the Crown Office has given to its duty in law to consider and investigate any evidence which tends to exculpate the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie crime; and if the Crown Office is complying with this legal obligation.
This is not the occasion on which to go into the details of Lockerbie, but I have tabled a number of questions about it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock Port Glasogw): I have listened to my hon. Friend's views on that issue for many months. I feel that, given that the Minister for Health is to appear before the Scottish Grand Committee in the near future, he should be followed by the Lord Advocate. That would enable my hon. Friend and, indeed, others to ask such questions of him.

Mr. Dalyell: It is extremely desirable for others to ask such questions. We are talking not of a trivial matter, but of the biggest crime against civilians anywhere in the western world since 1945. Its consequences rumble on, affecting major matters of foreign policy in relation to north Africa—let alone the strong views of relatives of the Lockerbie victims. I must tell the Government that those relatives simply will not go away.
When I intervened on the Secretary of State to raise the final issue that I wish to raise in my speech, he told me that if I wanted to ask about the fatal accident inquiry set-up I could do so in Committee. I ask the Government now, however, to consider how such inquiries are viewed by those involved. I think that I have been very naive about the matter for a long time: although there have been constituency complaints, I have always taken the view that the fatal accident inquiry was designed to try to establish the truth. It has come home to me in recent weeks, however, that—in relation to that biggest crime since 1945—whatever else the inquiry was designed to do, it was hardly designed to elicit the truth. In fact, the best that could be said of the lawyers is that they thought it was their job, by hook or by crook, to obtain as much as they could in damages for their clients.
The Government's answers to questions suggest that they think that the fatal accident inquiry was a substitute for the public inquiry promised by Cecil Parkinson, then Secretary of State for Transport, to the British Lockerbie victims—in good faith, in my opinion, but on condition that his colleagues agreed. As we now know, one colleague did not agree. On 15 December, I asked the Prime Minister a question. The whole House laughed when I received no answer; it was a pretty sour, wry laugh, not a ha-ha laugh. I asked, "Why did she do it? Why did Mrs. Thatcher veto her own Transport Secretary?" After all, only one member of that Government was going to tell Cecil Parkinson what to do in relation to his own portfolio.
A question arises in regard to fatal accident inquiries. When a Minister, and only a Minister—a Transport Secretary, or the Prime Minister—is in a position to give certain information, is it right for there to be Speaker's exemption certificates? Only recently has the House become aware of public interest immunity certificates. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has vast experience in these matters, whether he had ever heard of a Speaker's exemption certificate. In this context, he had not. Nor had I.
It is a matter of considerable public importance to ask what information was given to the then Speaker, now Lord Weatherill, and to the then Clerk of the House of

Commons on which to basehhe decision whether to give a Speaker's exemption certificate. We are getting into very delicate water in relation to fatal accident inquiries.
The dramatically important fatal accident inquiry into Lockerbie raises the deepest questions of ethics on behalf of the counsel, who in this case were paid by the Government. I want to know why Brian Gill reached a stage at which he told Rev. John Mosey, the father of Helga Mosey who perished at Lockerbie, that he would no longer act for him if Mr. Mosey went on asking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The actions of counsel in an inquiry of the nature to which the hon. Gentleman refers go a little beyond the scope of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and return to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: It is difficult to ask questions about the actions of counsel, but some of us are profoundly dissatisfied because the matter goes so far as a counsel threatening his client that he will sue him. Dr. Jim Swire is a medical doctor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill in discussing the actions of counsel. If his comments relate to the general principles of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman's comments are acceptable, but to go into the actions of counsel is straying from the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I am always obedient to the Chair, but the matter raises deep questions of the ethics of fatal accident inquiries. I do not want to transgress and go out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I put it to you that the Secretary of State has invited me in the debate on the Bill to raise the issue of fatal accident inquiries. I do not know where else in Commons procedure one does it. The matter is certainly relevant to criminal justice. If people think that fatal accident inquiries are a fiasco geared simply to money rather than to the truth, our criminal justice set-up is in the deepest water.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that you are becoming just a little concerned that I am going too far. I give notice that if I am selected to serve on the Committee which considers the Bill, I will raise the whole question of fatal accident inquiries and what happened, as an example, at the major inquiry on Lockerbie. No fatal accident inquiry in Scottish law was more important than the Lockerbie inquiry. All aspects of it, including the extraordinary behaviour of counsel to clients, are a matter of legitimate parliamentary concern.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I, too, commence by making my own tribute to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. As a new Member of Parliament, it was quite an experience for me to see Sir Nicholas in action in this Chamber and in Committees. One never knew precisely what he was about to say, but one always recognised that he had deep knowledge; that knowledge could have been put to so much better use for people over the years. I am particularly sad at what I consider to be his early demise. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested, he was a kind individual in his own way. He was certainly kind to new Members. Perhaps I knew Sir Nicholas better in the past as someone within my party organisation who came to speak at constituency functions.
He was always a very popular speaker. His presentation of any case was tremendous; that was proved in the courts as well as in this place.
I apologise for missing the opening speeches in the debate. As the House may know, I am involved with the armed services parliamentary scheme. A project on that was scheduled for today. I regretted that I was not able to change the schedule when the Bill was placed on the Order Paper. I had not expected that debate on the Bill would come up so quickly, given that we are currently debating the Children (Scotland) Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, I welcome this Bill because it shows the Government's commitment to law and order issues and to doing something about a situation that has been unacceptable in recent times.
I ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow to clarify one point. He seemed to suggest that we should have an investigatory sitting at the beginning of the Committee stage similar to the exercise that we have undertaken on the Children (Scotland) Bill. I believe that that does not require a change in the rules. That facility has always existed. I would be surprised if now every new Scottish Bill had to go through that process. It seems to me that organisations such as the Law Society of Scotland will not be slow in coming forward to give advice to all Members of Parliament as we enter the Committee stage. I am sure that all Members of Parliament will welcome any input from it.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that the Special Standing Committee which considered the Children (Scotland) Bill gained a great deal of useful information from those who gave oral evidence at its sittings in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman is right about Special Standing Committees. For example, that quinquennial legislative event, the Armed Forces Bill, by custom and practice is always considered by a Special Standing Committee.

Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is much more experienced than me. I accept his statement that the establishment of a Special Standing Committee is not an unusual practice. I was suggesting that it should not be the practice for every Bill that comes before the House. I query the need for a Special Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, but I leave that to others. I should have no objection if that line were ultimately adopted.

Mr. Dalyell: May I respond to the direct question which the hon. Gentleman put to me? I offer a carrot to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). We were both members of the Committee that considered the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—that absurd and ridiculous measure, which is becoming more ridiculous, expensive and absurd every day. Had evidence been taken from local government officials and other people, the Under-Secretary would have found that the long hours that others and I spent legitimately and properly reading out briefs from them—because we had to—could have been shortened. If the Government's objective is to spend fewer

rather than more hours in Committee, it might be wise to have the hearings at the beginning of the Committee stage. That is an attractive carrot, is it not?

Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that considerable intervention. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State needs any carrots when he deals with the Bill. I am sure that he will have plenty of information stacked up in his head and in the briefings that he has already brought together on the Bill.
I turn my attention to the position of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Recently, I have welcomed some of his hard words on law and order. It seemed to me that, at long last, someone in the Labour party was coming to terms with the requirement to put law and order at the top of the agenda and, on that basis, I compliment him.
Having said that, however, I am totally disappointed with the Opposition's reasoned amendment, which bears the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, among others. I should have thought that he would welcome the Bill with open arms. He might not agree with every item in it, but that is why we have Standing Committees. I am sure that he has always found that the Government have had a responsive ear when he and I have pressed them on certain issues. If the Bill is given a Second Reading and gets to Committee, we will have provided a great opportunity to help people in Scotland, but what have we got from the hon. Gentleman? A negative and inaccurate amendment.
The amendment is inaccurate because, as I understand it, there has been an improvement in the crime figures in Scotland during the past year or two. I welcome that improvement and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumbarton would do so, too. For example, during the past year recorded crime fell by 8 per cent.— a fall for the second year running—and the clear-up rate increased by 2 per cent. to 34 per cent. Those figures show that the amendment is inaccurate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: From reading the newspapers at the weekend, I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a particular interest in drug-related crime. Perhaps he will comment on the fact that the figures for the category that includes such crimes went up by 7 per cent., the figures for the category that includes vandalism and fire raising were up by 5 per cent. and those for crimes of violence were up by 2 per cent. in the last year for which statistics are available.

Mr. Gallie: I acknowledge that drug-related offences have increased considerably, which I very much regret, but that problem is not unique to Scotland. It is a part of the scene world wide, it is spreading and we must deal with it urgently in the short term. That does not mean that there has not been an improvement in crime overall and in aspects of crime that concerned us greatly about three years ago, such as house breaking, and in serious violent crime. The Opposition amendment does us great discredit by not acknowledging those improvements. Once again, I must record my disappointment that the hon. Member for Dumbarton has not decided to put his money where his mouth has been by giving the Bill full backing on Second Reading, albeit while accepting that there might be much debate and argument thereafter.
Although there has been an improvement, I do not believe that all is right with the criminal justice system. I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to cast his mind back


to a conference that the Law Society of Scotland set up in Edinburgh just over a year ago. The conference seemed to be self-congratulatory. It included Government spokesmen as well as spokesmen from the bench—there were judges, lawyers, Queen's counsel and advocates, who seemed to believe that all was well with our criminal justice system in Scotland. When one speaks to people in the street, one realises that that is not the case, which brings me back to the reason why we must get the Bill into Committee and get the debate under way urgently.
I applaud a recent survey that suggests that people are more satisfied with solicitors. The other day, a straw poll suggested an 85 per cent. satisfaction level, which is a massive step forward. I congratulate solicitors on achieving such a performance, even though the manner in which the poll was presented and the accuracy of the data beg some scrutiny. The poll shows, however, that the Scottish legal service is getting to grips with some of the issues.
Some of the disillusionment might be due to the fact that people feel that the procurator service does not give full value for money. Perhaps that is an unfair judgment. I feel that the service should explain why certain cases are not taken forward. Having had discussions with the Lord Advocate and the legal fraternity, I recognise some of the reasons why the procurator cannot always explain the thinking behind the decision, but I recognise that when that decision has passed into the public domain it leaves questions that may never be answered in the public's mind and give rise to disquiet.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware of the disquiet that always exists about prosecutions. In my constituency recently, there was a case in which burglars were caught red-handed in the act, but were not prosecuted. Naturally, that caused great concern, especially to the people who had apprehended the burglars, at some risk to themselves.

Mr. Gallie: Such a situation brings the law into disrepute. I am sure that my hon. Friend cannot justify to his constituents why that should have happened. He and I know that we cannot obtain that sort of information for our constituents, and I thank him for mentioning that case as it helps me to expand my argument. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give that matter some thought, although I recognise all the difficulties.
Another difficulty is the perceived inconsistency in sentencing. Some clauses seem to deal with that problem. If we can provide some consistency, through guidance to judges and sheriffs, it will do much to improve the attitude of the public to the criminal law and the criminal justice system in Scotland. It is vital that we keep the public on side. Recently, there was a terrible case in Edinburgh when a man lost his life. It appears that it was taken by other residents in his block of flats. He was a child molester. There had been signs of discontent and it seems that the residents took the law into their own hands. That is what I read in the newspapers, in the Edinburgh Evening News, and that is my judgment from reading the newspaper articles. That is the sort of situation that we must guard against. People need to feel comfortable with the law and feel that it stands for justice. We must ensure that inconsistencies and illogicalities in sentencing do not occur.
I am especially pleased with the aspects of the Bill that deal with bail. At long last, it seems that the court system will display some sense as far as bail is concerned. I have described instances of people committing four or five offences and being given bail time and time again—in the case to which I refer, held only on remand after the fourth or fifth offence—which brings the law into disrepute and greatly concerns the people at large.
I must register some disquiet about the wording of clause 3, however, which suggests that bail should not be considered if someone has committed an offence while on bail. To commit an offence while on bail suggests that an individual has been proved guilty of that offence. It would be better to change the wording to suggest that, if an individual has been charged with a further offence, rather than has "committed" a further offence, for a second time, he has then offended against bail and, at that point, bail should no longer be allowed.
The Government have introduced many measures to improve matters. Strathclyde police's Operation Blade and the Government support for the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 have helped in recent times. The Government took a great step forward in improving law and order—I take some pride in it—when they gave the prosecutor the right to appeal against perceived lenient sentences. The measure was first promised in our 1992 manifesto and it was commendable that the Government delivered it in 1993.
I am not sure, however, that I agree totally with the legislation on criminal procedure and punishment. I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we introduced a measure that allowed anyone sentenced to up to four years in prison to have his or her sentence automatically reduced by 50 per cent.; thus, a four-year sentence became a two-year sentence and a three-year sentence became an 18-month sentence. I do not think that the public signed on to that one. I recall mentioning that problem in Committee, but no one else on the Committee backed me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It was a shame. I expected better from Opposition Members, but their support was not forthcoming. At that time, I suggested to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I could have accepted the measure, had the remission been earned. If an individual in prison has behaved well, it may be right to release him or her half way through the sentence, but I did not like the automatic aspect. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary bear that in mind for the future, even if the matter cannot be dealt with in the Bill'?
I am also concerned about juvenile crime, which is creating great havoc, particularly on housing estates where vandalism and under-age drinking are rife. Perhaps those matters could be dealt with in the Children (Scotland) Bill; they certainly do not seem to have been addressed in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may contradict me and say that there is scope to do so in clause 62; if so, I would welcome that.
Another serious omission from the Bill is a measure to combat child alcohol abuse. It is an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy alcohol, but it is not an offence. for a child to obtain alcohol and to drink it at home or in the street. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary discuss that matter with me later to see whether we can table an amendment to cover that problem? The issue is important to many of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon.
Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). I am sure that the problem exists also in Dundee, Midlothian and Paisley.

Mr. McMaster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problem of young people drinking in public places. The problem goes back a long way. When I was a councillor, I encouraged an application for a byelaw against that, but each time I ask the Government whether they will do something about it, I am told that local authorities can apply to introduce byelaws. I would prefer the Government to take the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Gallie: I cannot distance myself from anything that the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can you not?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's comments were fair and he gave an honest reading of the current position. The Government have looked to local authorities to use their powers, but many local authorities have failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate to the Government the need to take the matter further and amend the law. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is listening to me tonight and saying, "By jove, that is a jolly good idea. I shall have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr later and see what we can do about that."

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend may be aware that I took up that matter during the passage of an earlier Bill and the Government assured me that any efforts made, for instance, by Perth and Kinross or Angus district councils to introduce byelaws would be looked on favourably.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of any arrangements that he had made with the Government. Perhaps he and I can have a chat after the debate and see whether we can find a way to take that matter forward.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman makes a positive point about drinking and young people. He may be aware that, on Friday, I launched an under-age drinking scheme—the proof of age card scheme—in Dumbarton and, if the hon. Gentleman proposes an amendment on that matter, the Opposition would be delighted to support it. The fact that young people can buy alcohol in supermarkets is a problem, and respectable supermarkets sell drinks like TNT. Cannot we sit down in a positive and constructive way and table amendments to the Bill? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's influence with the Government could hear fruit in this case.

Mr. Gallie: I am not sure whether I have that much influence. None the less, I shall press my hon. Friends to introduce an identity card, which would solve the problem of under-age drinking as well as a range of other problems. Will the Opposition join me in putting pressure

on my hon. Friends to introduce a compulsory rather than voluntary identity card? If the hon. Gentleman would care to rise and back me on that, I would welcome it.

Mr. McFall: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gallie: I am very disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's response. This is an opportunity to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants, but he stays in his seat and shakes his head. I am disappointed but not surprised.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) discussed the age of consent. I cannot understand how he concluded that there is an overall feeling in the House that we should again reduce the age of consent for consenting males. We voted on that issue not long ago and the motion was negatived. I should have thought that the matter was now over and done with and I do not see why the matter should be injected into the Bill. I acknowledge that it is almost impossible to enforce the law with regard to young boys who carry out such acts behind closed doors. At the same time, it is equally hard through recourse to the law to prevent girls of 14 or 15 from having intercourse. That law is, however, a deterrent and a standard. I do not want standards on the issue to be dropped any further. I should like to think that no one will waste the Committee's time by tabling such an amendment.
I understand that the Bill is also designed to introduce further changes to aggravated trespass. I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to clarify current Scottish law relating to that offence. When we passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, I understood that the clause relating to aggravated trespass would also affect Scottish law. I would be disappointed to hear that that was not the case. I am currently trying to persuade the chief constable of Strathclyde region to use that law to deal with events arising from the M77 extension. That legal route has been cleared by the Government and by Strathclyde regional council through democratic means. That work is now being held up and people are unable to do their daily jobs and are prevented from carrying out their honest efforts by others who have no right to occupy the site. The law of aggravated trespass could be used against those people. I had thought that it had already been incorporated into our law and I should like some reassurance on that from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
I am sure that all hon. Members would like to welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, but I believe that the proposed changes to the intermediate diet procedure are the key ones. The amount of police time wasted in our courts is criminal. We are always shouting for more resources and more police on the streets. The extended use of the intermediate diet procedure will put policemen back on to the streets and it will save time. Those changes will benefit not only police officers but, more important, people with other jobs, who may otherwise be called to court on occasion up to four times, only to learn that the case has not been brought up. That delay means that those people have lost time at work, their employers have lost the use of their resources and everyone has been inconvenienced. That is not good enough. The extended use of the intermediate diet will certainly help to overcome that problem.
The list of welcome items in the Bill is endless. I notice that it is intended to give the courts the power to forfeit assets gained as a result of criminal activity. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)


spoke about the drug scene—I believe that forfeiture represents a major means of tackling it. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs spent considerable time considering the use of that power, for example, in America and the benefits that resulted from it. We called for the legislation governing forfeiture to be strengthened. Our call appears to have been answered by the Bill and I compliment my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on that.
I should like to draw attention to a recent decision by the European Court of Justice challenging the existing legislation on forfeiture, which is applied in the English courts. I understand that the court made that challenge on a technicality, because the English court had acted retrospectively. I appreciate that the European Court of Justice may have acted logically in that case, but I should hate to think that, at some future date, it will have any right to step in and criticise provisions relating to the forfeiture of assets contained in the Bill, once enacted.
I spoke earlier about sentencing inconsistencies. I understand that provision will be made in the Bill to develop sentencing guidelines, which would be most welcome. Other welcome clauses are also designed to attempt, once again, to stem computer pornography. That would be popular with those in Scotland who are extremely concerned for young people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will also consider legislating against those who make and sell obscene videos. That problem deserves proper scrutiny. Any steps that the Government took to tighten the law on obscenity would be warmly welcomed by the Scottish public.
I am greatly encouraged by the powers offered to the police to stop and search vehicles, which will help in the fight against terrorism. I hope that the need for that fight has diminished greatly, given recent developments in Northern Ireland, but one never knows what will happen. It is therefore worth while for those police powers to be included in the Bill.
The Opposition may cry out about law and order, but I have looked through the reports in Hansard and it is clear that every time there has been a proposal to increase the police's powers to stop and search, the Opposition have voted against it.

Mr. McMaster: The Opposition have always defended civil rights. The hon. Gentleman should recall that when he introduced the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill, we offered support to ensure that, without any loss of civil liberties by the majority, those carrying knives were arrested.

Mr. Gallie: I welcomed the support that the Opposition gave my Bill.
When we talk about civil liberties, we get down to the heart of criminal justice. My idea of civil liberties is that people should be able to live in their homes, free of concern and children should be able to go about the streets without their mothers panicking when they have been out of their sight for more than half an hour. Those are the kind of civil liberties that we must defend.
People should enjoy quality lives by being assured that those people who are prepared to break the law and create misery for others are properly dealt with. I believe that the Bill will certainly do that, which is why I commend it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, once again, on introducing it so expeditiously.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I should like to take this opportunity to add my comments to those of my colleagues about the late Nicky Fairbairn. This is the first opportunity that I have had in the House to say that I considered him a friend.
In the short time that I have been in the House, Nicky Fairbairn helped me and a constituent, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with extremely useful legal advice. He went out of his way to help us and that is the side of him that I should like to remember. I should also like to remember the entertaining and witty exchanges that we had on some visits together.
I was complimented by Nicky Fairbairn on two occasions. First, he wrote to me and said that I had made a visit to Brussels "tolerable". I do not know what he meant by that. On another occasion, he told me that he was writing a book and that he had written a chapter all about me. I said that if he said anything nice, I would sue him. He appreciated that very much. I shall certainly miss him very dearly, and I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of many hon. Members here. He was a good, very interesting, intelligent and extremely witty person, and above all a very kind person.
I wish to give my, I hope, constructive support to the law and order measure before us. I say to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), that Opposition Members have a responsibility to be constructive in the debate. I should like improvements to be made in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not voting against the Bill; on the contrary, we are voting for our amendment.
I have with me, and shall quote from, the Scottish Trades Union Congress document that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I agree with what it says, and it is constructive, in my opinion:
The contents of the Bill will not improve the delivery of justice in Scotland. Certain important matters have been ignored such as the underfunding of the Procurators Fiscal Service in Scotland, the need to balance the scales of justice so that the defence as well as the prosecution can properly prepare its case and that victims should have enforceable rights.
Additionally, the cumulative effect of the Bill is '… expected lo be broadly cost neutral with the possibility of some overall net savings in the longer term.' The watchers of and the practitioners in the criminal justice system agree that more money is required to prosecute cases. Any reform which ignores this fundamental problem cannot be successful.
Some clauses place an additional burden on the over-stretched Procurators Fiscal Service. Clause 10 which further limits the right to silence, imposes a duty on the prosecutor to investigate 'to such extent as is reasonably practicable, of any ostensible defence disclosed in the course of the examination'. On the surface this may seem to compensate for the attack on the right to silence but as the Procurators Fiscal Office is so over-stretched, any investigation of an 'ostensible defence' may be minimal.
When we talk to our friends in the police force, we find that one of the most damning things about the behaviour of the procurator fiscal—I hope that the Minister is listening to me—is the dropping of cases. The police go to the lengths of devoting hours, days sometimes, even weeks, to sorting out a case, assembling the evidence and finding witnesses, and hand in the papers to the procurator fiscal's office, only to discover that the case has been dropped, with no reason given, logical or otherwise.
Sometimes there are many months of delay between the time when the papers are given to the procurator fiscal and the time when the case is dropped. Witnesses and even victims are sometimes not even informed that the case has been dropped. Justice is ignored in those circumstances. Police time is wasted, and the opinion of the police is obviously ignored, from senior level down to the constable or the person who made the arrest. That problem is part and parcel of the problem of the procurator fiscal service being overloaded and undermanned.
Justice falls victim to another practice—plea bargaining. Plea bargaining obviously means that the person concerned can pick and choose the charges that he agrees he has committed. That is done for the sake of an easy way out and for simplicity, to ensure some movement and to get rid of a problem in the procurator fiscal service, in the opinion of others. Is that justice? Is that the way to deal with it?
What is the result? Morale is low among the police and others involved. Witnesses are amazed. They cannot and do not know what has happened, and the result is cynicism. The question even occurs to them: why try? The reason for that problem boils down to undermanning and underfunding.
I cannot understand why, when decisions are taken in the Crown Office, it need explain to no one, not even to a Member of Parliament—and I have tried. I have written to ask why the Crown Office reached a certain conclusion and why it dropped a case or made a comment, and I have received no explanation. The Crown Office merely quotes the legislation, which provides that it does not need to reply.
I know that the referees in the Scottish Football Association have a great deal of explaining to do because, especially when my team is playing, I do not know what they are doing half the time, and I do not know that they know what they are doing half the time, but I know that they are certainly biased against me.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Not so. Never!

Mr. Clarke: Yes, every time. The referees are all oriented towards Glasgow teams. I know that. Everyone knows that in Scotland.
Seriously, I am talking about a different matter. I am talking about people making decisions or deciding not to follow through a case, and saying confidently, "We need explain to no one." I thought, innocently or ignorantly, in my official position as a Member of Parliament, that I could get answers to my questions from the Crown Office, but I asked to no avail.

Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. Friend believe that at least part of the reason for that might be that the Lord Advocate is a Member of the other place and the Solicitor-General is a Member of neither House? In the Scottish Grand Committee, we have been told that although we can question the Minister of State, we cannot question the Law Officers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) points at

the Minister. There is a very important difference between a Minister and a Law Officer. That is why we should be able to question the Law Officers.

Mr. Clarke: I agree partly with what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall let him in in a minute.
I agree broadly with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). I hope that the Minister, because I hope that he has faith in the Scottish Opposition's work, will try to negotiate innovations in the Grand Committee so that we may have the opportunity of bringing those officers before us, and in a friendly manner grill them in the usual way.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend should be aware that several Members of Parliament in Scotland have written to the Lord Advocate about serious matters that constituents have drawn to their attention, especially in relation to some cases that have gone ahead and others that have not gone ahead. The replies that we have received are so cryptic as to be meaningless. They are basically telling us, "Keep out of our business; that is the end of it; no more." I find it appalling that Members of Parliament do not receive a full explanation.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister takes notice of that, because there is a genuine, sincere feeling among many people who are law officers that no reasonable or even logical explanation is given of why those cases are dropped.

Mr. Gallie: I think that the difficulty goes deeper than the argument that was made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).
Every Member of the House can make representations to the Lord Advocate, and I would suggest that each Member who has those anxieties should do so and have a conversation with the Lord Advocate about the matter. If one were to release details of every case that was not brought to law, it would bring into question the actions of both the perhaps guilty and the not guilty—the innocent victims. It would set a precedent that could well rebound against many other people.
I have the same unease as the hon. Gentleman; I made those arguments in my speech, but there is a balance to be found somewhere and it is not as simple as the hon. Member for Paisley, South suggested.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that it is not a simple position. I have carried out the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and written to the highest officer in the courts in Scotland, but to no avail. I received an explanation, but it was not satisfactory. I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of the majority of hon. Members present. I am not saying that there should be open house and that, on each occasion, we should be told. But it is not right for Law Officers to say merely that it is the law, that is as far as they are prepared to go and they are not accountable to anyone. I do not know whether they are accountable to Ministers—I suppose that they are in a roundabout way, and give them a nod and a wink.
The hon. Member for Ayr mentioned juvenile crime. I am amazed that someone should come to the conclusion that unemployment and poverty equals crime. I have known that all my life. I think that, even without an inquiry, all Opposition Members know that such circumstances obviously bring an increase in crime. If those circumstances are combined with drug addiction—the hon. Gentleman is aware that we investigated that problem in Scotland through the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—it creates a hopeless situation. In addition, there are the problems of homelessness, inadequate jobs and an inadequate future. In such circumstances, people drown their sorrows in drugs and drink.
Scotland is no different from anywhere else. I liked the comment of the hon. Member for Ayr that it was a worldwide affair. Of course, it is, but we are not in the United Nations, but in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster. We are looking after the interests of the people in Scotland and debating that subject. We cannot hide behind the crime statistics of other parts of the world. The problem is on our doorstep and we do not need to go to the United States, although it was useful to study the problems there and in Holland.
When we talk about crime and justice, we must also talk about the environment of those whom we represent, particularly in Scotland. Without adequate housing or jobs or an improved environment, we cannot expect anything other than an increase in crime.
I want a police force that is adequately manned, and given the right equipment and opportunities. But there is an alternative to gaol. There has been no mention of a halfway-house system and greater supervision of petty offenders. Many people who are in gaol should not be there and could be in a halfway house where they could be supervised. Many prisoners are mentally ill and should not be in gaol. The people who run such institutions tell us that. We have an inadequate social service in our communities.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the mentally ill. Is it not the case that the Bill contains a clause to address that issue? That is another reason why the hon. Gentleman should join us in the Lobby tonight and stand wholeheartedly behind the Bill.

Mr. Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I think that he misunderstands what I am saying. The Bill contains clauses about people who are declared criminally insane. I am talking about people who, due to inadequacies in the system, commit petty crimes and wander the streets, due to the so-called policy of bringing people into the community, without supervision and back-up. The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head—he should go to the prisons and ask how many prisoners are mentally ill. He will be told that, on average, up to one third of prisoners are mentally ill. I am talking not about those who are criminally violent. but about those who are utterly confused, and who should not be in such an institution, but in another one. We would help the authorities by looking after those people properly. That is just one aspect of our criminal justice system.
We cannot ignore the social consequences of our criminal justice system and say that we must have a good criminal justice Bill. I should like harder sentences for some offenders. We must analyse the background and the position. It is easy to judge people from afar. The worst

judges are those who are not even present in court, but who comment on specific items. A case may take three or four days, but a decision on whether a person is guilty or not guilty may take five minutes.
The Bill partly achieves what we want, but we also want amendments and improvements which, I hope, will be constructive. I hope that we can achieve something of which we can be proud. The Bill contains many anomalies, which have been stated not only by me, but by those involved in the justice system on a daily basis.
We cannot expect the procurator fiscal service to deal with people equally or fairly if it has inadequate funding and is inadequately manned. We only waste police time by presenting the procurator fiscal service with cases that it has to push to one side because it does not have the time to deal with them. The morale of the police, of others handling the cases and of those who are prepared to act as witnesses leaves much to be desired. I hope that, even if the Minister takes none of my other points on board, he will address that one.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my apologies to right hon. and hon. Members for not being present earlier in the debate. My wife was taken ill, and she and I had to spend four hours at Bart's hospital this afternoon. I believe that the message was given to the Minister earlier and to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
Although I paid tribute to Nicky Fairbairn in Friday's European debate, it would be remiss of me not to mention him in my first Scottish debate since his tragically early death. I echo the fine tributes paid to him and add that he always treated me in an extremely civilised and friendly way, even when diametrically opposing my views.
The aim of the legislation is to put more criminals behind bars. I have no objection to that objective provided that such people are convicted in fair and open court proceedings. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—the Bill should be consigned to a Special Standing Committee. Not all our Bills should go to such a Special Standing Committee, but it seems likely that, at most, only two members of the Standing Committee considering the Bill will be lawyers: the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I shall not be on the Committee, but I think that those without legal training could benefit enormously from being able to cross-examine witnesses at the four sittings of a Special Standing Committee.

Mr. Gallie: I am thinking back on my limited time as a Member of Parliament and to my knowledge that the Committee considering the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill contained no accountants—

Mr. McMaster: Or bankrupts.

Mr. Gallie: There were neither bankrupts nor accountants nor insolvency practitioners, but we still managed to debate the Bill for many hours and to obtain advice from elsewhere. It was the same with criminal proceedings and punishment—although perhaps we could


have done with some help in that area. I do not think that we should open the floodgates and automatically consign every Bill to a Special Standing Committee.

Dr. Godman: Despite the brilliant intervention by the hon. Member for Ayr, I still disagree. We do not have a Scottish Law Officer—the last one was Mr. Peter Fraser from south Angus, who departed this place in 1987. That is to be regretted in the context of all kinds of legislation that must be scrutinised. I hope that the Minister will agree with my suggestion that the Scottish Grand Committee be given the opportunity to cross-examine the Lord Advocate on a wide range of measures relating to Scottish courts and our legal system. Lord Fraser is to appear before the Committee, so why should not the premier Law Officer from the other place do likewise?
Those who are convicted in the sheriff court or the High Court of violent crimes against the individual should receive condign punishment. I have said that often in this place and during the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. Many years ago I served as a military policeman and I saw at first hand the shocking injuries that were inflicted on defenceless women, youngsters and others innocently going about their business.
More recently, as a member of a local prison committee I often interviewed prisoners who were being assessed for release under licence and I felt that some of them had received light sentences in the sheriff court or the High Court. At Saughton in Edinburgh I was regarded by other committee members as something of a hard man because I frequently recommended that the people whom I interviewed should remain in prison for a considerably longer time.
I remember interviewing, over a period of three months, two men who were members of a much bigger gang which ran explosives to Northern Ireland for an extremist group. Thanks to very fine police work, they were caught but I believe that they did not receive sufficient punishment for the dreadful crimes that they were aiding and abetting by running explosives and weaponry to Northern Ireland.
I have no doubt that many of my constituents will welcome the Bill's measures because they are deeply concerned about the violent crimes that have been committed locally. I recently spoke with a fellow ex-shipwright who is now in his seventies. He was known locally as a hard man in his younger days, but he told me that he did not like to go out at night because of the violent characters who roamed around and with whom he could no longer contend. Many elderly people turn up early to my surgeries, which start at 4 pm on Friday, so that they can be safe and secure at home before dark. That is a disgraceful state of affairs.
I refer the Minister to a case which was reported last week in the Greenock Telegraph under the headline "Sex fiend sent to Carstairs". Last August a young man abducted two women in the car park of the Tesco supermarket in Greenock and forced them to drive him to a wooded area near Kilmacolm where he subjected them to an unspeakable ordeal. My young violent constituent was sent to Carstairs. Last Thursday, Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-General, said that he was satisfied that
grounds had been made for a hospital order without time limit".

In the context of the Bill and extant legislation, I ask the Minister: when such a person is consigned to Carstairs, can he be released within a relatively short time if the appropriate medical practitioners deem that he is sane enough to take his place in the community? What does the phrase "without time limit" mean? The act of violence that I have described frightened many of my female constituents of all ages. Is Lord Ross accurate when he says that the sentence is "without time limit" or, following detailed examinations of the young man in three or four years, could three consultant psychiatrists recommend to the Secretary of State that he be released? I believe that a person convicted of crimes of that nature must receive condign punishment. I sometimes despair of our sheriffs and judges who allow people off lightly and I wonder whether the legislation will tighten up the system.
I have not forgotten the case of the young marine in Arbroath who killed his wife and child—the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will know the details of that case better than I do. Following a trial in the High Court, that young man was released and, when he tried to emigrate to Canada, the Canadian authorities, quite rightly, denied him entry.
Important measures must be taken to deal with bail, but I believe that clauses 1 to 5 should be scrutinised rigorously in Committee. Too many people commit further crimes while on bail and we must tighten up the provisions in that area. If I were a member of the Standing Committee examining the Bill—I hope to escape such service—I would look at that aspect very closely.
The Bill deals sensibly with juries, but I have some reservations—I must be careful about what I say as I recently escaped jury duty on the ground that I am a Member of Parliament. I believe that juries should comprise 15 good men and women.
Clause 15, which refers to the delay in trial proceedings, makes sense. I wonder whether there is a chance to extend that provision to the Republic of Ireland, although I suppose that that would require some international agreement. It constitutes a bolthole for some people and I imagine that it did not feature in the negotiations surrounding the framework document.
I thought initially that some radical measures would be introduced on the protection of complainers in rape cases. However, the legislation refers to "clandestine injuries". Clause 24 states:
Clause 24 adds clandestine injury and offences under 2B, 2C and 7 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 to the sexual offences which attract special restrictions on questioning as to the sexual history or character of a witness".
That phrase is a little high flown—or, as I would say, a little fly blown. As the Minister knows, I have worked to improve the protection given to complainers in rape cases. There is still a good deal of trawling through a woman's sexual history, but perhaps the Minister will repudiate that statement when he speaks. I am deeply disappointed that the Government obdurately refuse to give complainers in rape cases more protection.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that clause 28 is the most important part of the Bill? Whoever drafted the Bill cleverly sought two approaches, because clauses 10 and 28 go together. It is probably hoped that clause 10 will be accepted while clause 28 is rejected, but they are really the same. Lawyers are used because their clients feel themselves to


be inarticulate and would be better represented by a legal mind. That is one reason why both clauses 10 and 28 should remain.

Dr. Godman: If my hon. Friend is fortunate to serve as a member of the Committee, he may find it worth while to read the excellent speech of Lord McCluskey in the other place who made interesting observations about those clauses.
I have long argued that complainers in rape cases should he treated as vulnerable witnesses. I say that despite the publicity that attached to a rape case in England that ended last week. Women are subjected to offensive questioning in the witness box. The threat of criminal proceedings deters many women from making a complaint. We do not know how many rapes are committed each year in Scotland or elsewhere.
I readily concede that advances have been made by the courts and police. Strathclyde and other forces have family units, where rape victims are treated a damned sight more sympathetically than in the days when they were left in the clutches of some insensitive police surgeons. Nevertheless, much more could be done.
Some years ago, I tabled in Committee a new clause to a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Had it been accepted, it would have put a stop to all trawling through a complainer's sexual history. A curious combination of Nicky Fairbairn and the then Solicitor-General, Mr. Peter Fraser, demolished my case, to the satisfaction of Conservative Members.
The concept of a vulnerable witness should extend further than children. I know that the Minister, who paid me a compliment not so long ago, played a part in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which give enhanced protection to child witnesses in sexual and child abuse cases. Section 34 concerns the use of screens to conceal the witness—which, to be honest, is not very effective in most courts. Section 33(1) introduced a commissioner to take the evidence of the child. I offer my respects and compliments to the Minister for that radical measure.
I would like such protection to extend beyond youngsters caught up in terrible circumstances. Why do the Government continue to refuse similar protection to people with learning disabilities? I regularly visit a centre in my constituency, but some of the young fellows there cannot face meeting strangers and will hide when someone enters the room—especially if he has a deep voice like mine. Such cases are rare, but a witness with learning difficulties should be given the same protection as a youngster who has been sexually or physically abused or criminally neglected.

Mr. McFall: Under clause 10, an individual would have to undergo judicial examination 24 to 48 hours after an offence. He or she may ask a lawyer for advice, but the lawyer cannot make representations. Would not that mitigate against a fair trial for individuals with special needs?

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intelligent intervention. I sound like my hon. Friend—a deputy head teacher. Clause 10 should be amended in that respect. I would like a new clause, or clause 24 extended to broaden the concept of a vulnerable witness to women

complainers in rape cases and to men and women with learning disabilities. They too should be spared the ordeal of giving evidence in open court.
In the next hour or so, by a process of osmosis, the Minister will tell me that few such cases go to court. I do not care if the number is only two or three youngsters over three or four years—they should be protected.
I want the Minister to give an assurance that while this Government remain in office, which I pray will not be long, the status quo on the anonymity of the complainer and the identification of the accused will remain in rape and other sexual assault cases. I just paid the Minister a tribute—de mortuis nihil nisi bonum. I recall Nicky Fairbairn making outrageous statements on the question of anonymity.
The Bill concentrates—some say rightly and properly—on prosecuting criminals, but seems to ignore the interests and needs of victims and witnesses. I have a question for the Minister on clause 50. I apologise if the Secretary of State touched on this matter in my absence. From where are members of the rules council to be drawn? Are they all to be members of the legal establishment, or will there be lay persons on the council?
I have a final word to say about the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses. About 10 days ago the Minister announced, in a written answer, the installation of closed circuit television systems in a court in each of the sheriffdoms. Will he confirm that the CCTV being installed in the—recently renovated but still leaking—sheriff court in Greenock is a permanent fixture? Local opinion has it that it will be removed as soon as the Paisley sheriff court has been renovated. There may be some disagreement about this with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), but I am doing a bit of special plea bargaining with the Minister. My hon. Friends can always put in similar facilities at Paisley—

Mr. McMaster: That is a deal.

Dr. Godman: Yes, but I am looking for a deal with the Minister—with respect to my old and hon. Friend.
It would seem a shame to pull out this sort of facility once it has been installed. Even if CCTV were installed in a court in each sheriffdom, there would still be far fewer such systems in our courts than south of the border. I believe that nearly 60 English Crown courts now have such facilities: we have very few. There could easily be one in Greenock and one in Paisley—but I am just trying to stay friends with my two hon. Friends.
All these issues are close to my heart. I hope that my old and hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) is listening when I say that I do not anticipate serving on the Standing Committee. Still, I think that the Bill needs detailed, rigorous scrutiny. It certainly needs to be amended—for instance, along the lines I have suggested for the victims of crime.
I have looked at the television system in sheriff court No. 5 in Glasgow, and I think that it works exceedingly well for everyone in the room—although I hope never to be in the dock. It certainly works well for the jury, the sheriff and the judge. Certain witnesses, however, who have to relive the ordeal, say, of a vicious rape, such as my two constituents suffered last August on the Old Kilmacolm road, and who are denied such protection—all


except child witnesses—should be given anonymity and a great deal more protection. The Bill needs to be changed to reflect the interests of such people.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Like all who have spoken in the debate I want to put on record a tribute to the late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, who was a person no one in the House could miss. All the obituaries that I have read refer to his great range of skills and talents. He was prominent in legal circles in Scotland before he came here. Once here, he was known for his political abilities, which were always seen at their best when he turned on his own side. He was also well known as an artist, and I know from conversations with him that he always described himself, too, as a landscape gardener. Before coming here I was a senior lecturer in horticulture, and I can vouch for the fact that Sir Nicholas was a knowledgeable gardener. This place will be less colourful without him.
I have waited with great enthusiasm to take part in this debate, and I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), our Scottish Whip, for giving me so much encouragement to say a few words. I shall therefore say all that I need to say tonight, and leave service on the Committee to others who have not yet had a chance to speak. I apologise in advance for not being able to stay for the wind-ups, owing to other duties not too dissimilar from this one.
All hon. Members who have spoken so far have referred to plea bargaining and the need to organise it better. We all know that there will always be an element of plea bargaining in the courts. The problem at the moment is that all those participating in a case are told to turn up at 9.45 am, then to wait a few hours and go for lunch, and then they are told that the case will not be heard that day because of plea bargaining. Some of the witnesses may be police officers, and as the police tend not to take deployed officers away from their usual duties, police witnesses are often paid for court appearances out of overtime budgets. That means that money that could be spent on all sorts of valuable police work is lost because of time wasted in court.
In Paisley, Divisional Commander Michael Currie and the local procurator fiscal some time ago developed an informal system of informing the police as early as possible if it was likely that an officer would not be required. Of course, officers have to be on standby, but at least they can be doing other work. The latest estimates show that as much as a third of the police overtime budget is spent in this way. It is also a waste of time for witnesses who have taken time off from other duties to appear in court.
This is not a new interest on my part. As long ago as May 1992 I wrote to the Secretary of State about it—and to the Comptroller and Auditor General. As a matter of courtesy I sent a copy to the Scottish Office. I received a reply from Lord Fraser, dated 7 July 1992. In it, he told me that much of my analysis was "facile and unenlightening", and went on to give me all the reasons why legislation of the type that now appears in this Bill could not be put through the House of Commons. I am therefore glad to see that the noble Lord Fraser has since reconsidered—perhaps because the Comptroller and

Auditor General commented on the resources wasted in this way. I hope that some sensible arrangements can now be put in place.
The poor layout of courts and a lack of facilities can lead to witnesses on both sides of a case being in the same room at the same time. That can lead to intimidation. The problem is not confined to serious trials; there can be problems in what the courts would regard as routine trials. For example, anti-social behaviour involving neighbours may find itself in court. Those involved will leave the courtroom and then have to live close to one another. The problem will be exacerbated within the community for some time if there is any prospect of intimidation.
I hope that something can be done to ensure that more information and advice is given to victims, and especially the families of victims. A case in my constituency became prominent and many people will remember it well. A young man called Holmes was murdered outside a disco in Paisley. The culmination of events played a part in the introduction and enactment of legislation on knives.
The case went to court, where it was decided that the accused could not be found guilty of the charge. The Holmes family says that it has lost a son and that no one has been punished for the crime. I accept that the issue must be left to the courts. I would not wish to become involved in the detail of the case. The problems surrounding the case became exacerbated, however, because before, during and after the trial the family was provided with little information. When it was provided with information, including meetings with the procurator fiscal, it was inadequate. On one or two occasions, it was inaccurate. That causes great concern. I know that there is a group in Strathclyde that is involved with the families of murder victims and is pushing the case for more information.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some important points about miscarriages of justice. The Secretary of State referred to these miscarriages in his opening remarks. He told us that he has set up a committee, which has not yet reported. He explained that he wishes to wait for the committee's conclusions before he makes any legislative suggestions. We understand the reasons for that.
The Secretary of State has recognised that there are miscarriages of justice by accepting an application on behalf of one of my constituents, Raymond Gilmour, for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. There is evidence in the case—arguably and technically it is not new evidence—that was not available to the defence when the trial took place. Accordingly, it was not led in court. I do not want to prejudge the Secretary of State's involvement in the matter. I merely say that my constituents are grateful that the application was accepted. Obviously the family is anxious that there should be a decision as quickly as possible, but not at the price of an investigation that is not thorough. We must stand back and leave the Secretary of State to exercise his judgment. He must decide how thoroughly the issues must be investigated before he can come to a conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian talked about the offices of procurators fiscal. He made a strong case that these offices are sometimes overworked. I go along with that to some extent. We must be careful, however, to ensure that overwork is not used as an excuse for a macho approach or, in some instances,


incompetence. Those approaches can obviously be found in busy offices but they are to be found also in relatively quiet offices.
I took up the case of procurators fiscal offices in 1992. In a series of cases at Paisley, blunders resulted in alleged drug dealers walking out of court on technicalities. There were instances of writs being served too late or wrongly dated. On occasions they were wrongly dated to be served on a Saturday or Sunday, when the offices of the procurators fiscal were not open. Such errors do not engender great confidence. When they occur and accused persons walk out of court, there is resentment. Those who are dealt with more severely feel that they have been treated unfairly and differently from those whom they perceive to be guilty but who walk free. We are reminded of the hackneyed phrase that not only should justice be done, but be seen to be done. We should ensure that everybody in the courts is dealt with in the same fashion.
I have asked a series of questions on this issue—I asked some as recently as Friday—because I am concerned about when the procurator fiscal decides to refer a case to the Crown for decision. I asked in what circumstances such a referral would occur and, quite honestly, the answers that I have received so far have been unsatisfactory. We need more openness in the Crown office and the procurator fiscal service.
The Bill must be seen in the context of the causes of crime because crime is related to hopelessness. That is not to say that all crimes are related to hopelessness, but hopelessness certainly creates more chance of crime. Every unemployed person is not necessarily a criminal—of course that is not so—but there is a direct link between crime and people, especially young people, who feel that there is no hope for the future.
In that context, the Government are putting forward the Bill as a means of dealing with crime while, at the same time, they are implementing massive and savage cuts in Strathclyde regional council and elsewhere. Cuts in the community education budget and in all sorts of community facilities will inevitably lead to young people having nowhere to go and nothing to do, which is precisely what leads them into crime. I appeal to the Minister to see the matter in context.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the relationship between unemployment and crime, does my hon. Friend agree that many minor offences are committed by unemployed youngsters and that, if they were in work, with all the disciplines that work would impose, they would not commit such minor offences?

Mr. McMaster: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The general demise of the apprenticeship scheme, which put young people in a work situation and taught them discipline, is also disadvantageous.

Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many of the crimes to which he has referred, such as vandalism, house-breaking and other crimes are, in fact, committed by 14 and 15-year-olds and that those youngsters have an excellent education system to utilise? Why should they be of the same brand as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. McMaster: Young people of 14 and 15 want to be educated for something. They see 17 and 18-year-olds coming out of education to poverty, hopelessness and

unemployment, and it does not motivate them. Young people should be given hope for the future. That would do a great deal of good.
We have heard a lot about various types of drugs. In my constituency, the drugs that concern me most are jellies: temazepam. They are meant to be prescribed, yet, not only are young people swallowing them, but they are heating them up and injecting them. Some have had their limbs amputated as a result. Action could be taken swiftly if the Government were to repeat what they did a couple of years ago, which certainly helped for a short time. The Secretary of State should give guidance to every health board and tell every general practitioner in Scotland that temazepam should not be prescribed when there is any other reasonable alternative.

Mr. John McFall: We have had a worthwhile debate in which we have heard many good speeches from hon. Members of all parties. I shall begin by paying my tribute to the late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. I took the post of shadow home affairs spokesperson without being a lawyer or having expertise, but from the first day Sir Nicholas Fairbairn was very kind and helpful in his remarks. Not once, in a professional way, did he try to take us down. That is clear from the record in Hansard. He did take people down on occasion and they felt the sharp edge of his tongue. However, when he realised that there were serious aspects and that people were trying to apply themselves and to learn, he was one of the most sensitive individuals in that regard—

Mr. Foulkes: That was before all the postcards started to arrive.

Mr. McFall: I was about to say "bundle", which is quite appropriate.
The Bill is a bundle of procedural reforms. If it were not for the Law Commission's report being implemented, it would be very thin indeed. The Bill lacks a strategic overview and coherence. It emerges from five consultation papers which the Government entitled "Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland". The topics covered were evidence and procedure, criminal legal aid, juries and verdicts and sentencing and appeals. Those four topics were preceded by the White Paper, "Firm and Fair".
Do those topics add up to a Runciman commission, which was a critical analysis of the Royal Commission on justice in respect of England and Wales? I do not believe that they do. Scotland has been short-changed in that respect.
Since the Government came to power, there have been 14 Acts of Parliament for Scotland. They started with the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and they carry through to this Bill. However, those Acts did not follow a logical and progressive path. As a result, they do not point the way forward in terms of an approach that is coherent, efficient and effective for the criminal justice system in Scotland.
For example, there is no presage of the criminal courts rules council in the Bill. That provision simply appeared on Report in the House of Lords. If that is such an important element, why was it not in the Bill from the beginning? It seems that the Government are still developing their ideas and that they do not have a coherent whole yet.
The Bill refers to many measures such as enhancing the intermediate trial diet. However, that is already operational. If my memory serves me correctly, it was recommended by the Lord Justice-General as long ago as 1982, but it was not working properly. I believe that about 12 courts are operating intermediate trial diets today. Will the Minister tell us precisely how many courts are operating that system and how effective they are? Have the Government undertaken a review of the effectiveness of the intermediate trial diet?
The Secretary of State said that a consolidation Act will follow the Bill. That is welcome, but it must be comprehensive. Will we find ourselves some way down the line with yet another criminal justice Bill, as a result of the piecemeal approach, and yet another consolidation Bill? I remember that the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 had to be revised. Some of the revision took place in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Hon. Members have already referred to judicial examination, the diminishing of the right to silence and the prosecutor's right to comment. Clause 10 relates to judicial examination whereby an accused person is taken before the court at a very early stage in the proceedings, before he even knows the case against him. He will have a copy of the complaint, indictment or petition, but he is then in many ways forced to explain his case. Within 24 hours of being arrested, an individual may be brought before a sheriff to be questioned by a prosecutor. He has a right to consult a solicitor before answering detailed questions about where he was, what he did, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to individuals with special learning needs. Such individuals might find themselves being pressured by professional people. That further undermines the right to silence. The official Opposition will press the Government on that matter in Committee.
Under such judicial examination, there cannot be many people who are capable of rational thought 24 or 48 hours after a trauma. The general public will view clause 10 as an attempt to make the accused confess. I shall press the Minister on that matter in Committee.
I am concerned also about clause 28, which relates to a prosecutor's right to comment. How far will a prosecutor be allowed to go? What control will be exercised? A prosecutor's forensic abilities may be put into play, and without any restrictions or guidelines being set, he or she can not only intimidate a witness but, in the process, make sure that the prosecution case is won by default. It is a two-way process. I ask the Minister to consider it and to give us some written guidelines. If, in going over the top, he destroys the prosecution case, that is not good for justice, either.
Clause 29 is worth consideration in Committee. It has a certain plea-bargaining element to it, but perhaps it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It states:
In determining what sentence to pass on …an offender who has pled guilty to an offence, a court may take into account—
(a) the stage in the proceedings …at which the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty".

Is not there a chance that an offender will say, "If I plead guilty early, perhaps I will get away with it and get the problem settled very quickly"? There will turn out to be a plea-bargaining element. That matter is worth further consideration in Committee.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned miscarriages of justice. We welcome the establishment of the Sutherland committee, but we deplore the fact that it will not report until July 1996. We must compare that with the Runciman report in England and Wales. As I mentioned when I intervened on the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary has already announced a miscarriages review authority Bill. Citizens of Scotland will be subject to a different regime from that in England and Wales. Citizens of Scotland will have their right to silence diminished, as a result of the changes, when they appear at court and at judicial examination. Citizens of England and Wales will also have the right to silence removed, but they will have recourse to a miscarriage of justice review body, and Scotland will not. The mismatch of remedies available to citizens of the United Kingdom does nothing for the provision of justice in Scotland.
I ask the Minister to guarantee that, in the event of the Sutherland committee recommending legislation, the Government will give sufficient time to the matter in the lifetime of this Parliament. We need an unequivocal answer from the Minister. This matter is not just an aspect of the legal system. We are talking about a higher level; innocent people's lives are threatened. It is important to turn our attention to that matter.
One of the most ingenious comments in the Bill is that it will be financially neutral. It is hard to guess what the final financial element will be. Civil servants have already studied it. They have tabled plus and minus merits and demerits of aspects of the changes, so there must be a quantitative element. If the Government are not forthcoming with that information, we must ask whether they consider that change is worth while only if the cost is neutral. The calculations on which such expressions are based should be shown. Lord McCluskey in the other place referred to cloud cuckoo land. How can we introduce extra bail duties, which we are happy to endorse, for fiscals and advocate deputes? How can extra preparation be introduced for questioning at judicial examination? How can extra preparatory work for fiscals be introduced, and how can matters be dealt with in the earlier clauses of the Bill? How can extra work be introduced for hearings in relation to insanity cases, and extra responsibilities be conferred in relation to confiscation under part II? It just cannot be done without an increase in the resources available to the fiscal service.
There is a glaring lack of reference to the fiscal service. All practitioners in courts elsewhere say that the underfunding of the procurator fiscal system is the problem. Any defence lawyer who has a case wrapped up will say, in private, that the system is under such pressure that, to an extent, an advantage is given to the defence.

Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Why are only four Scottish Labour Members sitting behind him?

Mr. McFall: There is a full turnout of Tory Members, but nevertheless only a handful are present. The hon. Gentleman was present at the beginning of the debate, but subsequently decided to leave; when he left, other hon.
Members came in. If he had stayed throughout the debate, he might have based his information on fact rather than fancy.

Mr. Stewart: Where are they, then?

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friends have been in the Chamber at certain stages.

Mr. Stewart: Answer.

Mr. McFall: I think that the Eastwood bruiser is warming up to take over from Sir Nicholas.
The Bill is predicated on the White Paper entitled "Firm and Fair", in which the Secretary of State calls for "our fight against crime". The White Paper stated that the highest priority was to protect the public from crime and criminals. The question is, how efficient have the Government been in that regard since they took power? In 1979, 673,000 crimes and offences were committed; according to the latest estimate, the figure is now over 1 million. Even in the last year, when according to the Government the crime figures have fallen, the number of drug offences and violent crimes has increased. The fact is that the Government have little to present in terms of law and order. They have not been efficient in that regard, which is why Labour's slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" has resonance up and down the land.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is bandying around some interesting slogans. Is he suggesting that Labour's proposals will increase the pay of a policeman over and above the real terms increase of 30 per cent. that has already been achieved by the Government? The number of policemen has also risen. How will the hon. Gentleman deal with that, and what will be the cost?

Mr. McFall: It is very simple. Nearly all local authorities in Scotland are Labour controlled and work with the communities and the police. It is the actions on the ground that count, as against the Government's lack of intention. Opposition Members are proud of the way in which good Labour local authorities work with communities and the police; it is a shame that Conservative Members are not.
Let us look at the Conservatives' record on law and order and the courts. The position of the courts has already been mentioned. According to the figures, it is estimated that 250,000 citations are served annually on a total uniformed police strength of 14,000. Each day, 700 police officers attend court to give evidence in criminal cases going to trial, but only one in five gives that evidence. Police evidence accounts for only 2 per cent. of police court duty. The rest is travel and waiting time. So I put it to the Government that if they want to do something about fighting crime and putting police on the streets, they should do something about the scandalous waste of police resources in courts. It has a severe impact on operational duties.

Mr. Gallie: Surely that is precisely what the Bill does. On that basis, why on earth has the hon. Gentleman tabled this stupid amendment?

Mr. McFall: The Bill does nothing of the sort. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we pressed Lord Fraser of Carmyllie to examine the wasting of police time in court. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wrote to him. In his reply, the noble Lord said that he found much of my hon. Friend's analysis facile

and unenlightening. He said that he was surprised that my hon. Friend did not understand why police officers spent time waiting to give evidence. Let me remind the House that the Public Accounts Commission took the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South. It found that there was a scandalous waste of police time. It has asked the Government to do something about it. As yet, the waste still takes place in courts.
Only last year, the chief constable of Central region mentioned in his annual report that police in his area wasted 98 per cent. of the time that they spent at court. What do the Government intend to do about the problem? It has gone on for years and years. It requires the Opposition to cry day in and day out for the Government to do something. We congratulate ourselves on the fact that a measure is now in the Bill.
The social context in which the Bill has been introduced is a phenomenal increase in drug-related offences. Between 1989 and 1993 total recorded crime in Scotland rose by 10.1 per cent. Yet drug-related offences leapt by an incredible 1,000 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked earlier, what is the Government's policy on drug enforcement? Drug abuse is one of the greatest social problems facing Scotland today. It is one of the principal causes of crime. The Opposition recognise that the problem of drugs must be tackled if any headway is to be made in the battle against crime, but the Government have stubbornly refused to do that, despite evidence from the Medical Research Council, the World Health Organisation and Greater Glasgow health board. A survey by the board showed that 80 per cent. of those surveyed engaged in crime to service their drugs habit.
The Government can no longer continue pretending that there is no link between drug abuse and deprivation. I should like to see in the Bill measures to assist drugs education so that we can change the agenda, control the supply of drugs and experiment with strategies at the social and community level with voluntary groups and the parents who are involved in the problem to help the people who are regular users not to get into trouble.
Crimes of violence are of particular concern to many people. The latest figures show that crimes of violence have increased. What have the Government done in the light of that? Last year they removed the entitlement to legal aid from a quarter of a million people. They then implemented sheriff court fees. That means that people who take action in sheriff courts are expected to meet the full cost of the sheriff's salary.

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are debating the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, not civil law in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with civil law matters.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is replying to the debate will come back to the substance of the debate.

Mr. McFall: This is an integral part of the issue. The Law Society of Scotland has contacted us on the matter. The Government intend to introduce measures on criminal legal aid similar to those which they introduced on civil legal aid and on criminal injuries compensation.
We all sympathise with the case of Judy, but what have the Government done? They have dismantled the legislation that a Labour Government established in the


mid-1960s and, as a result, if a police officer aged 30 with two children is killed in the course of duty, his widow will receive £10,000 no matter how financially or psychologically difficult her position, whereas before it was £150,000.
In case the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) thinks that we are straying again, I wonder whether he would support us in the following case. If a police officer is killed, does he agree that his widow should not merely be given the pitiful sum of £10,000, as would be the case with the criminal injuries compensation scheme? If we table a positive amendment, we can ensure that the tariff scheme is kept for the less severe cases, but we could use the scheme that we had previously for the more severe cases and those that impinge on the families who are left behind. Police officers' widows would then get the sum of money that they rightfully deserve.

Mr. Bill Walker: I want to understand what the hon. Gentleman is offering. Is he saying that he will table a detailed amendment so that the widow of a police constable killed on duty will receive substantial benefit? Will it be a narrow amendment, dealing purely with police constables?

Mr. McFall: Yes, and if we get Conservative support it will be fine. I am saying that the tariff scheme should be abolished at one end of the scale to give us some flexibility. Let us have a tariff scheme at the bottom, but not at the top. The hon. Gentleman has been helpful to his Front Bench as always and I will be delighted if we can follow that path.
The Secretary of State said that the Government were at the forefront on crime, but if they are, they must be standing there watching—they are certainly not doing anything about it, because it is increasing year on year. They talk about the success of crime prevention and say that they are backing the police. Let us ask the police what they think after the Sheehy inquiry. Ask the prison officers what they thought when the Government took away industrial dispute legislation.
Labour is looking for positive measures to encourage the community to work with the police in close co-operation and to support home security schemes, which result in safer neighbourhoods. We want measures to encourage local victim support projects, neighbourhood watch and other community projects. We want measures to implement social strategies and tackle some of the causes of crime, because there is undoubtedly a link between increasing crime and social deprivation. That is the distinguishing mark of the official Opposition compared with the Government on this issue.
We are telling the Government to tackle the causes of crime—poverty, poor housing, poor education, high levels of unemployment and drug abuse. Yes, deal firmly with the perpetrators, but target young offenders to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals and an obligation on the state, then we will have a positive framework on which to work so that the Bill gets its Second Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Tonight, Members of Parliament from both sides of the House have

paid tribute to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. They have mentioned his great personal kindnesses in offering legal advice, in particular. Many of us will miss him as a friend—not just the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who had been his junior counsel, as indeed have I. I believe that the late John Smith also served in that capacity. We will all miss his puckish sense of humour. Although he did not always agree with the Government, I am certain that he agreed with the bulk of the Bill, and we miss his presence tonight.
The Bill contains many reforms that are critical. I must start by telling the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that one of the most significant reforms is the introduction of intermediate diets, and the pilot scheme has been remarkably successful. It was carried out in Airdrie and Dundee sheriff courts and the analysis showed that intermediate diets cut unnecessary court attendance in half. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right—the police presence in courts should be cut and the measure will help to do that.
Courts in Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Dumbarton have introduced the diets, with similar results. The provisions in the Bill are needed to ensure that courts throughout the length and breadth of Scotland can also secure those benefits.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton also asked whether guidelines on prosecutors' comments on the accused's failure to give evidence would be issued. I confirm that the Lord Advocate gave an undertaking in the other House that he would issue guidelines to Crown counsel and procurators fiscal.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the issue of closed circuit television. He is right to say that those television facilities will be extended to every sheriffdom in Scotland. The equipment currently in use in the sheriff court in his constituency will be reviewed and a final decision will be taken in the light of demand.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about those who are sent to Carstairs and how easy it is for someone imprisoned there without a time limit to get out. I would say that it is extremely hard. When I practised in the High Court, we often took the view that if someone was charged with murder and ended up in Carstairs, he was likely to be there much longer than if he went anywhere else. The two major issues are the individual's mental state, which is a matter of clinical judgment, and public safety, which is entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied about that before deciding to release the prisoner. Any such committal is appealable to the sheriff court.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the criminal court rules council. I confirm that it will be drawn largely from professionals who use the court, but the legislation prescribes that one member should have an awareness of the interests of victims of crime and witnesses in criminal proceedings. That person, at least, need not be a legal professional.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I answer some other points first?
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East raised the issue of financial consequences of the Bill. We have every reason to be confident in our assessment that


the Bill will cover its cost at worst, because it is full of proposals that will relieve financial burdens on the police, prosecutors and courts. For example, the police will waste less time attending court needlessly and citing witnesses in person. Fiscal fines will be reduced and prosecutors in the courts will be relieved of some of the burdens that they now sustain. There will be savings in compensation paid to witnesses and jurors for attending court, and the cost of sending fine defaulters to prison will be reduced as supervised attendance orders will be used instead. Those and other proposals will probably more than offset the additional burdens but, of course, we shall closely monitor the position in the light of experience.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about cases marked "No proceedings". Like him, I have prosecuted—I was an interim procurator fiscal. It would have been unthinkable for me to have marked any case "No proceedings" on the ground of work load pressure and I am glad to say that I never came across a fiscal who took that action. I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman some figures. The main categories in which no proceedings were taken were insufficient admissible evidence and triviality. In 1993–94, 23 per cent. of cases were marked "No proceedings" because of evidential difficulties, and 29 per cent. because the offence was viewed as trivial. In the period between October 1993 and September 1994, not a single case was marked "No proceedings" for the reason of staff shortage. But I shall make further inquiries into the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about facilities in Linlithgow. I am glad to confirm that those are currently being reviewed in the Linlithgow and Livingston areas. I shall be pleased to ask my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State to write to the hon. Gentleman to bring him up to date on progress. The hon. Gentleman also asked about fatal accident inquiries when those are held to establish when and where death occurred, the cause of death, any reasonable precautions whereby death might have been avoided, and any defect in any system that contributed to the death. We are conscious of the need to pay even greater attention to victims and the Bill contains a number of practical measures, for example, to decrease the number of times that witnesses may have to attend court, to reduce the number of occasions when a trial must be cancelled or adjourned without warning and to remove one restriction on the prosecution's freedom to lead evidence of the accused's previous misconduct in cases where the defence has attacked the victim's character. All those measures are evidence of the Government's commitment to treat victims with courtesy, dignity and compassion and to reduce the trauma of their necessary involvement in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Dalyell: In the Government's view, is it the purpose of a fatal accident inquiry to get the truth or is it designed, as in the case of Lockerbie, to get maximum damages for certain parties and evade the truth? Does the hon. Gentleman think that Ministers and the intelligence services should, where necessary, be called to fatal accident inquiries?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's questions go somewhat beyond the terms of the Bill, because fatal accident inquiries do not feature in it. Without question, the purpose of those inquiries is to

get at the truth, which is what happened at the FAIs at which I was present. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity will be such that he will follow up his lines of inquiry elsewhere.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and many other hon. Members wanted to know whether the provisions on bail go far enough. It is the purpose of the Bill to toughen the existing provisions, for example, by enabling the courts to impose double the current custodial penalty on those who offend on bail. Any attempt to reduce offending on bail also depends on minimising the time those awaiting trial spend on bail. The longer the delay in bringing offenders to justice, the greater the risk of their continuing to offend. The measures in the Bill will also therefore assist the courts in dealing with delays and backlogs in the hearing of cases. That will also make an important contribution.
There have been a number of cases of bail abuse and it is absolutely right that we should tighten the law in that connection. The proposal to restrict access to bail in clause 3 is not unique. Section 26 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 states that bail cannot be granted for the crimes of murder or treason. Those restrictions have existed in statute since 1888. We are extending that restriction further, which we believe to be necessary.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) spoke about the "Crossey Posse". The problems posed by large numbers of pending cases can best be resolved by better use of courts' resources. Too much time is wasted with late pleas, non-appearance by accused persons and late adjournments. If we can reduce that waste of resources, the courts and the prosecutors will be able to process pending cases much more speedily.
The position of young offenders is uppermost in our mind. We have commissioned a major research study into the children's hearing system, which is being carried out by Stirling and Edinburgh universities. It will focus on decision making within the hearing system and the outcome for the young people who come before it. We have also announced a major development project, which is being undertaken by Barnado's and Central region, to address the problems caused by persistent young offenders, in which we are investing £1 million over five years. We are engaged in a number of other projects, because it is important to tackle the circumstances that give rise to crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about raves. The report by Sheriff Gow was also touched upon. The Scottish Drugs Forum has been commissioned to prepare guidance for local authorities and licensing boards to assist them in advising the organisers of raves on the practical measures they can take to minimise the health and welfare problems which sometimes arise at such events. In consultation with the local authorities and the police interest, consideration is being given to the practicalities of introducing model licensing conditions into licences for raves, possibly dealing with such aspects as stewarding, permitted numbers and searches.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with respect to Sheriff Gow's findings, the operators basically complied with the guidelines that he refers to already?
Does he agree that the real problem is that young people continue to take drugs such as Ecstasy, and that that is the issue that we must tackle?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument. Drug misuse is a serious problem in Scotland. We are spending no less than £40 million a year on the various agencies to combat it. We are determined to have a considerable drive, especially with regard to young people, aimed at its prevention, and the drugs task force will have a major part to play in that. There are now new schools drug prevention packages for under-10s and over-14s.
Substitute prescribing also has a role to play in tackling drug misuse. We shall work extremely hard at that subject for a comprehensive response.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) mentioned the homosexual age of consent. The House reduced it for homosexual acts from 21 to 18 and the House expressed a clear preference for a reduction to 18 rather than 16.
Since last November, when the law changed, instructions have been sent to procurators fiscal, saying that they should continue to report to the Crown Office, for consideration by Crown counsel, any case where both participants are over 16 and the act appears to have been consensual and in private but is an offence by reason of the fact that one or both are under 18. Since the issue of that instruction, no cases have been so reported for consideration by Crown counsel. Each case that is reported will be considered on its merits, and a decision will be made whether it is in the public interest that proceedings be taken.

Mr. Watson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have nothing more to say about that. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to pursue the matter in Standing Committee, and I look forward to his volunteering for that role.
With regard to clause 8, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about a joint application to have a juror excused. In those circumstances, both parties will continue to have the right to seek a juror's excusal by showing cause to the court.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, if I remember correctly, asked why we were not following a similar procedure to the Thomson committee. What was required, in our opinion, was a detailed examination of certain specific areas of concern. One solution that we propose is a continuation or development of Lord Thomson's recommendation—mandatory intermediate diets. Other proposals for a clause dealing with examinations of the facts are Thomson recommendations that were not implemented in 1980. The consultation that preceded the Bill was extremely comprehensive.
I come to the issue of intermediate diets, which I believe will help enormously to speed up the process of justice. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about temporary sheriffs. There are about 120 temporary sheriffs, who are used to maintain the work of the sheriff courts. That helps when the sheriffs are on holiday or on sick leave or the resident sheriff is absent, for whatever reason.
The judicial strength of the supreme courts and the sheriff courts is kept under constant review, in consultation with the judicial heads of those courts. In recent years, as the work loads of those courts have increased, so have the numbers of judges and sheriffs, and temporary judges and temporary sheriffs make a useful contribution to dealing with the work loads of the courts and to reducing inconvenience to court users.
Scotland now has more judges and more sheriffs than at any previous time in its history.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that there are now more temporary sheriffs than there are those holding permanent commissions? If there is a need for more temporary sheriffs than permanent ones, is that not a clear sign that the work load is sufficient to justify more full-time sheriffs? The Scottish system is based on full-time professional judges. Why are the Government not implementing that?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are now more judges and more permanent sheriffs than ever before. Judicial strengths are kept under constant review. It is notable that, for many types of court business and in many courts, waiting periods are now at or below the target figures.
On the subject of additional evidence, the difference of view between the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk has been mentioned, but that does not necessarily mean that the cases involved are at odds. All it means is that the subject will need to be considered by five judges. I should not say anything more as cases referred to the full Bench are sub judice.
It is remarkable that Labour Members have said that the right to silence is being threatened. Distinguished members of the Labour party or members who have been Labour Law Officers—

Mr. Foulkes: Name them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will. Lord McCluskey said of the right to silence:
It is deeply patronising to say that that cannot be commented upon. If the judge can comment upon it, as he can—though he should do so with restraint; and those restraints are fairly well known—I do not see any reason in the world why the prosecutor should not say, 'Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the evidence. His fingerprints were found all over the safe. His footprints were found on the carpet and his DNA sample matched that found on the broken window'".—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 569.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister is quoting from a Member of the upper House who is not a Minister. I think that he knows that he can quote from the upper House only from those who are Ministers.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall paraphrase what I was saying. It was considered not unreasonable to mention the facts of incriminating evidence and the fact that the accused who, in the circumstances, was the only person who might know exactly what had happened, refused to do so.
The clause does not remove the right to silence; it allows the prosecutor the right to comment on the fact that a person has sat tight in the witness box. When I was an advocate, if I saw an accused person in a serious criminal case of rape,


murder or assault to severe injury, sitting tight in the accused box, it was usually a sign that he or she was as guilty as sin.

Mr. McFall: I thought that we were talking about justice, until the Minister mentioned his own form of justice. Does he accept that some cases will involve over-zealous prosecutors, and such cases require more guidelines? Does he also accept that an over-zealous prosecutor can do as much harm to the prosecution case as to the accused? There is a vital need for guidelines—will they be forthcoming from the Minister?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I made clear earlier the circumstances in which the Lord Advocate would issue guidelines. It is absolutely clear that it is the prosecutor's job to put the facts before the courts, elicit the facts and leave it to the jury to make up its mind. If he has prepared his case thoroughly and there is a lot of evidence, that will weigh with the jury.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I want to move to my next subject: confiscation and forfeiture.
The Government have been in the forefront in introducing measures to deprive offenders of the profits of crime and property used in crime. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 introduced confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking in Scotland and has been extremely succesful. We believe that those new powers will make a huge difference in ensuring that ill-gotten profits from crime are taken away from those who would otherwise benefit from them. They will deprive criminals of assets where crimes such as serious fraud, theft and pornography have given rise to economic benefit. That is an important provision in the Bill.
I turn now to the subject of the not proven verdict. Much has been made of the fact that Sir Walter Scott expressed doubts about the not proven verdict. With the greatest respect to him, Sir Walter did not practise very much, for whatever reason. There is a great difference between the circumstances in Scotland and those in England. The royal commission's remit—to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred—was confined to England and Wales. It was considering whether not proven should be introduced in a system of juries of 12, with unanimous or 10 to two majority verdicts. The Government have consulted in Scotland on whether not proven should be retained in a system which has juries of 15 and simple majority verdicts and in which the not proven verdict has played its part for 250 years. The overwhelming response was that the not proven verdict should be retained and that is why the Government will not support its abolition. We have consulted about the issue and the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of its retention. Therefore, we will oppose any moves to abolish it.

Mr. George Robertson: I said in my speech that, in view of Scottish legal history, if there was to be any change in the Scottish legal system, it should be decided by a free vote. Will the Minister give a guarantee that Government Back Benchers will be free to vote according to their views and their consciences?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no need for a free vote on that issue. The evidence is conclusive that it is in Scotland's interests to retain it.
With regard to the not proven verdict, hon. Members will recall the case of Madeleine Smith who asked her boyfriend to return her love letters and, when he refused to deliver them, she gave him a drink laced with arsenic. The jury could not bear the thought of sentencing that young girl to he hanged so it brought in a verdict of not proven. I suggest that having the option of that extra verdict is very much in Scotland's interests.
To continue the story, Madeleine Smith remarried some years later. However, she quarrelled with her husband, who thought that he saw a glint in her eye, so he took off. It would be much more humanitarian to have a not proven verdict in circumstances where a jury is not 100 per cent. certain—beyond reasonable doubt—of the person's guilt, but where the jury is reasonably certain that the person committed the crime. In 1993, 18 per cent. of those who were acquitted of crimes were found not proven on at least one charge. In the past five years, the not proven verdict has been used in between 18 per cent. and 23 per cent. of acquittal verdicts.
Reference was made to the Sutherland committee. We had to wait until the royal commission released its report and, thereafter, there was no undue delay. We issued a consultation paper in January 1994, the consultation period ended in mid-April and our White Paper appeared in June. Committee members were chosen over the summer and the membership was announced in November 1994. That represents a focused and energetic response to the royal commission's report. I believe that alleged miscarriages of justice will be treated very seriously and the Secretary of State already has substantial powers in that area. Since 1928, six out of the 14 individuals whose cases have been referred back to the Court of Appeal have had their convictions quashed.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Opposition Members will agree that he has made an excellent case for supporting the Bill. In the last three minutes of his speech, will he make an impassioned appeal to Opposition Members to withdraw their ridiculous and stupid amendment?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I will. Apart from anything else, the amendment refers to rising crime and, as my hon Friend the Member for Ayr knows, crime in Scotland is decreasing in large measure because of the legislation that he introduced to control the carrying of knives. In 1992, there was a small reduction in crime, and there was an 8 per cent. reduction in 1993 and a further 3 per cent. reduction in 1994. There has been a substantial and continuing fall in crimes of dishonesty.
It is important to note that the number of crimes involving firearms have also decreased. The number of victims of homicide has decreased by 15 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr performed a great service for Scotland and the House by introducing the tough Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 which has helped to decrease the number of knife-related crimes in Strathclyde. Trends in recorded crime are affected by several factors, particularly the willingness of the public to report crimes. Far more are being reported than ever before. The war on crime must be fought relentlessly. The Bill greatly strengthens the system of justice, and will make Scotland a safer place in which to live.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 282.

Division No. 86]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Flynn, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Allen, Graham
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Fyfe, Maria


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Galbraith, Sam


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Austin-Walker, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Battle, John
Godsiff, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beggs, Roy
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Betts, Clive
Grant Bernie (Tottenham)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hanson, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heppell, John


Burden, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Byers, Stephen
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cann, Jamie
Hoyle, Doug


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Church, Judith
Hutton, John


Clapham, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jowell, Tessa


Corston, Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cox, Tom
Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dafis, Cynog
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davidson, Ian
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McKelvey, William


Dowd, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maclennan, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Alice


Enright, Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)





Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Martlew, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Maxton, John
Ruddock, Joan


Meale, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tyler, Paul



Wallace, James


Pearson, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Pike, Peter L
Watson, Mike


Pope, Greg
Welsh, Andrew


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wilson, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Wise, Audrey


Purchase, Ken
Worthington, Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Wray, Jimmy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)



Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Joe Benton.


Rooney, Terry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butcher, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butler, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Booth, Hartley
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bright, Sir Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant Sir Anthony


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Elletson, Harold


Burns, Simon
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)






Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lidington, David


Evennett David
Lightbown, David


Faber, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, R1 Hon Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gorst, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Ftt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





Soames, Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexfill)


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Stephen, Michael
Watts, John


Stem, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Sweeney, Walter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sykes, John
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thomason, Roy
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Bates.


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any amount payable—

(i) as compensation under Part II of the Act; or
(ii) under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Act in respect of remuneration or expenses of administrators;
(b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate under the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 203 or 412 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
This is the second section 5 debate that has been held. As last year, the House is invited to approve the economic and budgetary information to be sent to the European Commission in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. That information is contained in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which is usually called the Red Book. At the end of chapter 1 of the Red Book, it is mentioned that those chapters will be used for this purpose and will form the basis of the appropriate submissions.
The House will also know that, following the decision to leave the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent., my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced further measures on 8 December 1994 to keep public borrowing on a downward path. The increased rates of duty on alcohol, tobacco and road fuels, together with some reductions in public expenditure, were approved by the House and were incorporated in revised tables. A set of revised Red Book tables was published in due course.
The Red Book, therefore, in its original form and with the revised tables, provides the report to Parliament for section 5 purposes. This evening the House is being asked to approve that that report and those tables be sent to the Commission to discharge our obligations under articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht treaty. The House is not being asked to approve November's Budget. That has already been done. That was and remains a matter of legitimate controversy, which was and still is being debated as part of other business.
Nevertheless, reading last year's debates, I notice that the Labour party contrived a vote against the motion, although it was never really made clear on that occasion on what grounds it objected to the required information being sent. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is—I think—opening the debate for the Labour party—

Mr. Andrew Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is indicating that he will not open the debate this year, but he certainly did so last year. Indeed, I cannot resist drawing the House's attention to one of the hon. Gentleman's predictions last year, when he said that the balance of payments deficit was
set to get worse.
That was corrected immediately by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), the then Financial Secretary, who pointed out that it was getting better. The hon. Member for Oxford, East nevertheless persisted and said that the balance of payments
was set to get worse.
He added:
Time will be the test of who is right on that."—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 400–2.]

Time has been the test. Exports are up by 15 per cent. on a year ago and the current account was in surplus for the last recorded quarter. I hope that whoever opens the debate for the Opposition will show a little more modesty in his or her predictions and also, this year at least, vote to allow the Government's information to be transmitted to the Commission, regardless of whether the Opposition agree with the underlying policy.
In summary, therefore, I invite the House to approve the medium-term economic and budgetary position set out in the Red Book being sent to the European Commission as required under the treaty.

Mr. David Shaw: Have my hon. Friend and others in the Treasury been able to consider the fact that the Red Book is produced to the very highest standards of accounting policies and principles in Government accounting, that other countries throughout Europe do not produce their accounts on a similar basis and that many other countries have unfunded pension liabilities of an extraordinarily large nature? Is the Commission able to take our Red Book and use those accounts meaningfully in Europe or, in fact, will it not know what to do with our Red Book in relation to the accounts of other countries?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to say that the way in which we present our accounts and Budget projections is a model that we could well commend to other member states. It reflects credit on us that the projections provide an easily understood and comprehensive guide to our tax and spending priorities. I do not know whether the Commission receives similar information of such a high standard from other member states. However, all other member states are required to send similar information to the Commission and, on the basis of that information, the Commission produces a report and draws up an assessment of how the economies of Europe are converging or diverging.
I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: I apologise to the House as I am losing my voice. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased about that because it means inevitably that I shall have to make a shorter speech than I would otherwise have made.
It was interesting that the Minister was prepared to make such a short speech in which he did not say very much. He has moved a motion that is before the House simply because of the magnificent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his colleagues managed, in the debates on the approval of the Maastricht treaty, to put down what was referred to at the time as a ticking time-bomb. As a result of that, the Government were forced to concede a section of the Maastricht Bill, along with others, in respect of which the House has an opportunity to debate information that we subsequently forward to the European Community.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I have hardly started. I do not know what on earth the hon. Gentleman can query at this stage, but I shall certainly give way to him.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she explain why we are having this debate?


Why was the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) so keen for us to have this debate when all the information is set out in the Red Book and it is sent off to the Commission? What is the point of having this debate?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman obviously trusts the Government, and exactly what they say, absolutely. As the evening passes, perhaps I can persuade him that that is not the view of the British people. Very few of us, and even the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) who, at one stage, was vice-chairman of the Tory party, know precisely what Government policy is in respect of this and other areas. We do not know the Government's views on convergence. We have to wait until Wednesday to see whether the Prime Minister has any new information for us.
The Prime Minister told us on Friday that he was going to give us the definitive position at long last. Some of us wonder how long that position will last, because we have been told that on numerous occasions before. I wonder whether the position will last until the end of the debate. I wonder even more whether it will last until the end of the Government and whether the Government will last much longer than the debate.
According to the motion, the House will commend the Government's assessment to the Commission "with approval". I have very little sense of approving the Government's policy set out in the Red Book. It is our duty and responsibility as an Opposition to ensure that, on every occasion, the House has an opportunity to examine these issues with much more care than the Minister was minded to show this evening.
These questions are pertinent to our debate tonight, even though we cannot be fully assured of the Government's positions because they change so frequently. Indeed, they change not just because of debates in this House, but because of what is said by Conservative Members here, there and everywhere—wherever they may be.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: We heard from the Chief Secretary on one occasion—I think that it was on television one morning—that he would proceed with monetary union virtually over his dead body. One very live body who has been concerned by such debates is trying to intervene.

Mr. Butterfill: Which of the convergence criteria is not satisfied by the information that is set out in the Red Book?

Ms Armstrong: We do not yet know what convergence criteria the Government seek to satisfy and to have laid down. The Prime Minister suggested that he will seek to renegotiate some convergence criteria. It is appropriate to look at not only the convergence criteria that the Prime Minister originally negotiated but precisely the convergence criteria that the Opposition have been urging on the Government for some time, particularly those concerning the nature of the real economy. Nobody else wants me to give way.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] Does she not find it very revealing that, when there is enormous sensitivity in the country about convergence criteria, there should be a

feeling in the Government that the House of Commons does not need to debate the detail and the implications of this highly sensitive and important subject?

Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend. As usual, she is right and also very supportive in the way that I have come to expect from her over the years.
Here we are, 18 or so months since the passage of the Bill that introduced the Maastricht treaty, yet we are still in the dark about the Government's policy with regard to their future role in Europe. Having upset one group of supporters, will the Prime Minister now side with those whom, just a short time ago, he kicked out of the parliamentary party?
We know that, come what may, we shall not have a serious debate on how we should address the real problems in the economy of Britain, to enable people who have suffered most from the Government's economic policies to prosper. We shall debate the issue in order to ensure that the Government can again secure a majority, having lost the backing of other supporters in the House. The Prime Minister's motives, as ever, are about how he can stitch something together for the benefit of his own party, rather than about how he can tackle the real problems in the economy.
On Wednesday, will the Government support some developments in the real economy for which the Labour party has been arguing, including working towards full employment? Unfortunately, this debate is taking place without our knowing the answer. We are debating Government policy as reflected in the Red Book. From it, we know that there are serious problems in the real economy.
The Budget that we are asked to approve and to send to Europe confirms the Government's determination to press forward with tax increases, which will mean that a typical family will pay £800 a year more in taxes since the Government were elected in 1992. I seem to remember more than one clear statement from the Prime Minister, promising that there would be no tax increases after the election. The British people have learnt just how little they can trust the Prime Minister's word on taxes. Their pressure led to the Government being defeated on the most unfair of their tax increases, the increase in VAT on fuel.
It is interesting to note that the goals in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty include
sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment.
The Government had to throw out what they claimed was their "green tax"—not that any of us ever agreed that that was what it was. They had to throw out the measure to impose VAT on fuel, and the Minister has not said tonight how he will satisfy the need to respect the environment.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Lady has been most generous in giving way.
What does the hon. Lady think is the purpose of the proposed landfill tax, if it is not to respect the environment? The same applies to the increase in duties on fuel. Surely those are important environmental measures.

Ms Armstrong: We still have a long way to go before we find out precisely what the Government's intentions are in regard to the landfill tax, and when it will be introduced. As for the fuel tax, I believe that it will partly


deter people from using their cars, but it does not begin to deal with the need to control emissions from cars and the use of fuel.
I admit that I am making a rather snide point, in that the Government were defeated on the fuel tax issue; but we must deal with realities, and the reality is that the Government were defeated. It was they who claimed that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel was a great move towards meeting their commitments. I always doubted that, and the Government's failure to address the issue after their defeat confirms that it was never anything of the sort.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: A noteworthy feature of the interventions so far is that Conservative Members are apparently still very enthusiastic about imposing a 17.5 per cent. VAT rate on fuel. Presumably that tax promise will figure prominently in the Conservative manifesto preceding the next general election.

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right, but he applies logic to the way in which the Government will proceed; I am not sure that they ever proceed in an honest and logical way when it comes to admitting their taxation intentions to the electorate.
The Budget failed to include measures that would lead to medium and long-term growth. What is trumpeted as success by Conservative Members is soon shown to be extremely fragile. Total investment is still below its level in 1990, before the recession.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman hold on for a bit? My voice is all right for the moment.
Manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is nearly 30 per cent. below its quarterly level at the start of 1990. British firms must now seek to compete with 30 per cent. less investment per worker than in Germany or France, and 65 per cent. less than in Japan. The Chancellor could and should have done more in his Budget to stimulate investment in industry, and that is the message that we should have given to the European Community.
The Bank of England pointed out in its February report that
capacity constraints are becoming more widespread in industry …This will increase inflationary risks unless productive capacity increases.
Some people may be wondering why we quote the Bank of England today, but its predictions are normally very reliable.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has also raised the problem.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and giving me the opportunity to give her another little rest. I am a little confused about the position that she is expanding. First, she voted for the Maastricht treaty Bill. That suggested that she approved of the convergence criteria. Now the hon. Lady says that she wants full employment to be an economic policy, although that is not one of the convergence criteria. Then she criticises the Government's tax-raising policies even though they are

necessary to meet the convergence criteria. If we did not raise taxes in the way that the Red Book sets out, we would fail in our obligations to meet the convergence criteria. Is the hon. Lady in favour of the convergence criteria or does she think that they are too deflationary?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has always shown confusion. He abstained in the votes on the Maastricht treaty. I did not. He continues to claim to support the Government while opposing them on their central policies. The Labour party has always said that it wants much of the real economy to be tackled in a way that the Government are not doing and that unless that happens, the convergence criteria will not be sustainable. We have made that argument consistently and we shall continue to make it.
The Government simply fail to tackle the real problems in our economy. Those problems will increase precisely because of what the Bank of England talked about—lack of capacity. It is true that in Britain there is a lack of capacity in industry after the recession. Investment is below even what it was before the recession. It is lower now than in 1979.
Mr. Andrew Britton, one of the specialist advisers to the Chancellor, told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee:
a lot of the capacity which one might imagine would be there because of the recession has actually been lost".
That was in the Committee's report on the 1994 Budget. In other words, too many firms closed and the capacity for growth is not there. Consequently, Mr. Britton thought that the economy could
only grow above trend for a couple of years.
Lack of capacity for growth is also reflected in the rising problem of skill shortages. One would have thought that, having initially negotiated the terms of the Maastricht treaty, the Government would at least tackle skill shortages during the recession. But no. The figures on training are frightening. The Red Book reflects real cuts in the training budget. The training statistics bulletin demonstrates graphically that neglect. The numbers of people involved in training in and out of work declined. Most worryingly, the worst figures were among those without any qualifications and among 16 to 24-year-olds. Out of 23 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Kingdom has the second lowest proportion of 18-year-olds in full-time education. The country with the lowest proportion is Turkey.
In its November inflation report, the Bank of England said:
At present, skill shortages are not so acute as to pose a major threat of wage inflation …there is some evidence of skill shortages and settlements may be edging upwards.
Again, the Bank of England recognises that there are real problems in our economy, which will affect the Government's projections for growth and which already cause real problems in parts of the country. That is another reason why the feelgood factor that people talk about simply is not happening. Living standards are simply not improving to match people's expectations. Having weathered the recession, people believed that they would begin to experience the benefits of having paid so dearly for Government economic policies in the past few years. Far from it: if we include housing costs in the


projections for this year, the average family will lose about £10 per week, so the Budget will cause real problems for real people.
Public sector investment has been cut, as well as private sector investment. The Red Book tells us that it will be cut by 9 per cent., but that will be compensated for—so we are told—by a promise of a £5 billion investment in the private finance initiative. In the past two years, only £0.5 billion has been invested in that initiative and only 12 of the 96 projects announced have got started.
Out of all the Group of Seven countries, only the United States had a lower level of Government investment as a proportion of gross domestic product between 1980 and 1990 than the United Kingdom. The fact that the Government are spending not on investment, but on paying for the costs of unemployment, is what makes the Labour party so angry. When we realise that the percentage of public spending spent on benefit has risen from 22 per cent. to 31 per cent. and many more people are dependent on benefit now than in 1979, we know just how far Government policies have failed.
This debate gives us another opportunity to make the Government face their responsibility for the economy. They have failed the country on the economy and they have failed to ensure that people are able to get off benefit and into work—the Budget gave so little opportunity to push that aspect and to make it work. The jobs that the Government estimate will be created by their return-to-work measures will be more than compensated for by the number lost because of the changes and cuts in public expenditure that they announced.
When the Government get round to investing and using investment as a tool to encourage real growth, we shall be able to have much more confidence in the future of the economy. We do not have that confidence. We do not believe that we can take
note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in … the Financial Statement and Budget Report
and we will, therefore, divide the House at the end of the debate.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I thought that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General was unnecessarily laconic in his opening remarks. He was, of course, following the precedent of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who spoke for only four minutes in the debate last year. I think that my hon. Friend spoke for about the same time, which was an unusually modest contribution, as we are asked to approve a motion that suggests
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in chapters 4, 5 and 6
of the Red Book.
Normally, when the Government are pleased with their achievements they do not demonstrate such false modesty. If they are being modest tonight, it is perhaps because they have something to hide. If they have something to hide, it is not the technicalities of the motion, which are clear, as much as the inference in them, which is plain because it is set out in statute form in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
It is not Labour Members who should take pride in the fact that we are having this debate tonight but the minority on the Conservative Benches, who turned the arithmetic

round to ensure that, at least for one and a half hours every year, we debate the progress of Her Majesty's Government in meeting the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty.
As my hon. Friend the Minister alluded to those criteria, it is worth reminding ourselves what they are. He referred to article 103, the first paragraph of which says:
Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council".
This is yet further proof of something which we knew all too well—that there has been a steady erosion of sovereignty and a transfer of authority over our economic management, not least in budget deficits and the ratio of Government debt to gross domestic product.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On this day of all days, when the failure of a relatively small British bank has sent ripples through the entire global economy, is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is easy to isolate our economy from all the other economies?

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a jump in rationality that defies belief. I was sticking to the motion on the Order Paper and the exact reference criteria set down in the treaty: the 3 per cent. PSBR to GDP ratio and the 60 per cent. Government debt to GDP ratio, which are clearly established in the relevant protocol. I did not refer to the global economy or discuss the inter-relationship between one financial centre and another but was dealing with the motion on the Order Paper. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that, in this short debate, that is quite enough.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilkinson: No I will not give way. The debate is short and other hon. Members want to contribute.

Mr. Butterfill: Frit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is not necessary. The other day I deliberately pointed out that good manners seem to be leaving the House. There is no need whatever for insults in these debates. On reflection, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Butterfill: I accept that I may have been a little unkind to my hon. Friend, but I had hoped that he would allow an intervention on that specific point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the remark?

Mr. Butterfill: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Paragraph 3 says:
In order to ensure closer co-ordination of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission monitor economic developments in each of the Member States".
This bears out exactly what I was saying. Inasmuch as the Commission has powers, if those relevant criteria are not met, to impose sanctions on countries that do not fulfil those obligations, I should have thought that it was, at the very least, a democratic requirement that this House should have an opportunity to debate the Government's performance in fulfilling those criteria.
The Red Book makes it perfectly plain that, in the coming financial year, the United Kingdom will meet exactly the criteria of PSBR to Government debt and, compared with Italy, Spain, Greece and even Belgium, has a far tougher fiscal stance and maintains a far lower ratio of Government borrowing to GDP. The fact that we do so much better, as the Red Book makes clear, shows the difficulty of achieving convergence and the quantity of funds that will have to be disbursed from well-performing economies, such as our own and those of France and Germany, to redress these imbalances of economic performance. Those transfers of resources will he a cost to our people, as we saw during the passage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill in November.
The Government should come clean about the objectives behind the convergence process. They can rightly take pride in reasserting fiscal and budgetary discipline and I share with them wholehearted approval for what they have achieved in that regard to date. The qualities of fiscal and budgetary discipline are meritorious in their own right but not in relation to a process of supervision and, potentially, ultimate control to be exercised by the Commission and then the Council of the European Union. I do not think it appropriate either that the European Parliament should be a reference body to whom the defaulting nation's performance will be reported, as is provided for under the terms of the Maastricht treaty.
That said, I will not disapprove or vote against the motion. The Government, by passing those parts of the treaty, have accepted the objectives of convergence as they relate to economic and monetary union. Although we have a technical derogation by virtue of our opt-out, nevertheless we have accepted the disciplines that are germane to economic and monetary union, regardless of whether they fulfil the circumstances of our economy at any one time. At the moment, they do and I am delighted that we have made such progress. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer those points when he replies and that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will do so at greater length on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In a sense, that was an extraordinary speech. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) aspires to some form of splendid isolation, but he concluded his speech by congratulating the Government on being on course for convergence and said, "Please God, let it never happen." That reflects some inconsistency in his argument.
The debate is likely to be an annual event, which probably should be a little depressing to the House. The wording of the motion could have been a little more felicitous, because all that is required is that the Government seek the House's approval to submit progress reports on our economic convergence criteria. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, however, also asks for a report on the social and environmental goals set. Although I appreciate that it is not the Treasury's job to set those goals, the motion contains no reference to the Government having any intention to do so.
I remind the House that section 5 stemmed from an amendment tabled by the Labour party, of which the Liberal Democrats did not approve, but which the Government, rather astonishingly, accepted. Having done so, the Government should fulfil the section's terms. They have done two things to make that somewhat difficult. They have shown no regard for the full text of the Act. I am not sure what the implications of their defiance of an Act, which they accepted, amounts to. I suppose it requires someone to take them to court for a judicial review. Where is the social and environmental report, which was required by the Act? Will the Government provide it? Secondly, why are we being asked to note the Government's assessment "with approval", which requires everyone to endorse the Government's economic policy?
Many of us wish the Government to strive to fulfil the spirit of the Maastricht treaty, unlike the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, but that does not necessarily mean that the Government's policies by definition will eventually lead in that direction. Tearing a few pages out of the Red Book, throwing them down on the Floor of the House and in effect saying, "This is our economic strategy; please support it," does not show willingness to accept the letter or the spirit of the Act.
Interestingly, the Government talk about the opt-out that they have secured and the current success of their convergence criteria but do not appear to come to grips with the fact that our ability to opt in may be seriously questioned, not merely whether we can meet the convergence criteria, which we have not done yet and may still have difficulty in doing. If we met those criteria, the capability of the British economy to cope with the strains that a single currency would provide may bring our ability to opt in into question.
I say that personally and as a representative of a party that wants monetary union but believes that the Government have not really set their mind to the implications with anything like the rigour that is necessary. In those circumstances, we would have welcomed a fuller explanation, not simply of where we were, but of where we were going and the way in which we were going to get there.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman has those doubts about the economy's capability to fit into monetary union, why, two or three years ago, was the Liberal party chanting, "Move to the narrower bands of the exchange rate mechanism now"?

Mr. Bruce: Had the Government moved to the position that we took at the time that we said, they would not have finished up in a mess. [Interruption.] What happened—which also reinforces the case for a politically independent central bank—was that Lord Lawson did the most damaging thing that any Government could do: he joined the exchange rate mechanism at the worst possible moment, at the worst possible exchange rate and for the worst possible reason, which was to obtain a standing ovation at the Conservative party conference the next day. That is no way to run the economy and, sadly, the Government have failed to recognise that a commitment to a single currency—even in principle, never mind with or without an opt-out—requires an extremely rigorous economic policy, which the Government have shown no real application to deliver.
To finish that specific argument, which is only parenthetical but which I wish to make absolutely clear, I should say that it remains the opinion of the Liberal Democrats, and my personal opinion, that Britain should be taking a positive role in the development of closer political and economic union in the European Union and the development of a single currency. There is no doubt that the expertise that we have in the country should be used, but before we have even begun to opt in we have weakened our bargaining position and undermined our ability to shape the rules and regulations under which a single currency will be developed.
As a consequence, there is a real danger that the Government, having left the position open, may find that the British economy is not strong enough to sustain membership of monetary union because they have not applied themselves now. I earnestly hoped that the Minister would explain in much more rigorous terms how we shall ensure that the British economy invests strongly enough, organises strongly enough and accepts the cultural changes necessary to ensure that the choice of opting in and opting out was a real choice, based on a real understanding of the needs of the British economy.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman complains that the Government are not pursuing policies that create strong growth in the economy and are not ensuring rigorous application of fiscal standards. Will he explain why the Liberal party consistently votes for increased public expenditure in almost every Division, yet failed to vote for, and indeed voted against, increases in taxation?

Mr. Bruce: That simply is not true. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Liberal Democrats, and myself in person, who voted against the cost of electricity privatisation and the £7 billion of debt write-off that would have passed through the House on the nod until I spoke against the money resolution. I am not prepared to take lectures from Conservative Members who are selective about when they oppose public expenditure. If the Barings rescue had required public money, Conservative Members might have agreed to it because of their need to support their friends in the City. Their opposition of public expenditure is selective, and I do not accept the justification behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No, I will not. I have given way enough—this is a short debate and I intend to bring my remarks to a close.
The Government, having accepted the amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Act—an amendment that my party and I did not support, but which the Government accepted from the Opposition—should have recognised that it required more than just a few pages from the Red Book and a vote of confidence in their economic policy. The terms of the Act require a social and environmental report, about which we have heard nothing. We have had no clear sign of whether the Government intend to introduce it.
I want to make it clear to the Minister so that there is no doubt that we do not wish the Government to be placed in a situation where they cannot fulfil their obligations under the Maastricht treaty, which we support. There is a

duty on them to make a report to meet their treaty obligations, not simply to invite a motion of confidence in terms that do not address the whole issue.
On a constructive note, if this is be an annual event, it would be extremely helpful if the motion were in terms that required endorsement not of Government policy but of their submission of a report on the progress achieved by the British economy. Had that been so tonight, my party and I would have had no hesitation in supporting the Minister. If the Government take that view in future, the Minister will have my support and that of the Liberal Democrats. It is unfortunate that the motion was tabled with a lack of thought. I hope the Minister will understand that the Act contains terms that have not been addressed but which the Government should take seriously.

Mr. Tim Smith: At the start of her speech I asked the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) why we were having this debate and she failed to provide an adequate explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has explained that the object of the exercise is to see to what extent we are complying with the convergence conditions of the Maastricht treaty. I could not understand the motion when I looked at it because it seemed that we were being asked to approve three chapters in the Red Book, which is effectively part of the Budget—the House debated the Budget for four or five days and approved it some months ago. We are now being asked to approve the very same information that is contained in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Red Book.
As my hon. Friend said, and as I now understand, the real object of the exercise is to see to what extent we are complying with the convergence criteria, only two of which are relevant. The first is the level of public sector borrowing and the second is total Government debt as a proportion of gross domestic product. I agree with my hon. Friend that the targets of reducing those two levels were justified on their merits. He was not so happy about the idea that we should try to bring about convergence in the European Union.
Quite apart from the debate about a single currency, the very concept of trying to achieve convergence is justified on its merits. If we manage to get Government borrowing below 3 per cent. in all member states, we will have a considerably greater degree of exchange rate, inflation and interest rates stability than at present. Those things are all worth while per se; they would be guaranteed if we had a single currency, but the very fact that we are moving towards one will bring about much more stable trading conditions in the EU.
I support the concept of convergence criteria. I am not quite as sanguine as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is about the progress that we are making. The news release which was published by the Central Statistical Office on 21 February sets out the figures that are to be sent to the Commission; they are not the figures in the Red Book because they have to be adjusted to comply with the European system of integrated accounts. That results in a considerable addition to Government borrowing in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement and shows the following figures, admittedly now historical. The figure for 1992, as. a percentage of GDP, is 6.1 per cent. and for the calendar


year 1993, it is 7.9 per cent. I think that when we get the figures for 1994 we shall see some reduction, but those figures are hardly cause for complacency.
There is not much cause for complacency in the figures for total Government debt as a proportion of GDP. In 1992 Government debt as a proportion of GDP was 41.9 per cent., and it rose to 48.5 per cent. in 1993. That is not far short of a 60 per cent. ceiling. I fully support the Government's determination to reduce the high level of public sector borrowing and to reduce total Government debt as a proportion of GDP over a period of time. The figures in the Red Book show that those objectives will be achieved in four or five years.
I am glad that this information will be sent to the European Commission because there is a very interesting table at the back of the Red Book which shows the history of public spending over the past 30 years. It gives the lie to most people's perceptions of public spending. According to the table, in the past 30 years Governments have reduced the level of public spending in real terms in only four years. In three of those years—1968–69,1976–77 and 1977–78—a Labour Government were in power.
The last Labour Government were responsible for the largest cumulative reduction in public spending. In 1974–75—their first year in office—they cut public spending from £220 billion, in current values, to £205 billion three years later. This Government have increased public spending in every year except 1988–89. We should ensure not only that we cut public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: And lose the next general election too.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that elections are won by increasing the level of public spending; I do not believe that they are. I believe that a healthy economy is one which spends well below 40 per cent. as a proportion of GDP in the public sector so that more wealth is retained in the private sector to enable the real economy—about which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West claims to be concerned—to grow and to provide real jobs.
The Government aim to reduce public spending to 40 per cent. and below. In the mid-1960s public spending as a percentage of GDP was 36 and 37 per cent. That is the kind of target that we should aim at now.

Mr. Butterfill: When my hon. Friend refers to the cuts in public spending perpetrated by the Labour party, is he thinking particularly of the cuts which the International Monetary Fund ordered it to make to spending on hospitals and the health service generally?

Mr. Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you probably remember when the last Labour Government achieved huge cuts in public spending through massive reductions in capital expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is right: the funding programme for hospitals was cut by 20 per cent. in one year as a result of the intervention of the International Monetary Fund and Mr. Johannes Witteveen, who took over the running of the British economy at that time.
Today we are back on track to reduce public spending and public borrowing, which is the key point as far as the Maastricht criteria are concerned. I believe that that

reduction is justified on its merits, but I am also glad that we are making progress in complying with our treaty obligations.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) does not realise that an economy's ability to bear any level of public spending depends on the health and vigour of that economy. A fast-growing, vigorous economy can bear a much higher proportion of public spending—and would be advised to do so in order to improve the quality of life of most people. It is not the level of public spending as a proportion of GDP—40 per cent., 60 per cent. or whatever it may be—but the underlying strength of the economy that is crucial.
The problem with the convergence criteria that we are discussing tonight is that they are, in effect, deflationary criteria—they are daft and damaging criteria. The nearer the Government come to achieving those criteria, the more they will damage the underlying economic recovery in which the Government take so much pride. The Government were not responsible for that recovery; Mr. George Soros was. Having achieved that, it seems disastrous to clobber the recovery in the way that the Government are, by imposing high interest at double historic rates to fulfil damaging convergence criteria. I am sorry that that was not explained by the Minister, who took pride in the recovery. If he takes pride also in moving nearer to or achieving the convergence criteria, the recovery will be destroyed.
All the criteria are deflationary. It is interesting to hear the Chancellor and members of my Front Bench wishing that there were other convergence criteria, such as real growth, productivity and the underlying strength of the economy. That is fantasy. The convergence criteria in the treaty that must be fulfilled are all deflationary. They all amount to achieving price stability. The more we co-ordinate those criteria in Europe, the more we will co-ordinate deflationary measures that damage our economy.
In the long term, the only way to reduce the public sector deficit is to achieve a rate of growth that generates jobs and brings a return to full employment. That way, more people will be in work to pay more taxes, so more revenue will be generated while less is paid in unemployment and social security benefits. That is the only way to reduce borrowing.
We need this first real burst of sustained growth in the life of this Government. They did not want it but it was forced on them. We need that growth to be boosted. Industry will not invest or expand in the way that the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England are always lecturing about unless industry has a prospect of growth. That means the prospect of sustained competitiveness and lower interest rates.
Every time that the Governor increases interest rates, he damages the economy's prospects and makes investment less likely. He also guarantees that the opportunity for growth that has been thrust on the Government will not be seized.
I am sorry that the Governor's weekend was spoiled by matters that have no bearing on the debate. I wish that he had spoiled more weekends deliberating on the fate of manufacturing companies that have been shedding jobs


and closing. When the Governor is in a working weekend mode, he should contemplate the effect that he has on the recovery by increasing interest rates to today's high level.
Why is the Chancellor increasing taxes and the Governor increasing interest rates and clobbering demand? Perhaps they want to keep the pound at a higher level than it should be for the purposes of competitiveness, to regain some of the ground that the Chancellor and the Governor thought Britain lost by leaving the exchange rate mechanism. Shadowing the deutschmark is to revert to Lawson policies. That is one explanation for the folly. The other is that the only way to attain the convergence criteria is to deflate demand.
Both processes are damaging, and the Government owe the House an explanation for their actions. Why are they strangling their own recovery? Is it to shadow the deutschmark and to show ourselves to be communautaire, or is to attain the insane convergence criteria

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To answer the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I do not think it possible to make a judgment about the effect of interest rate movements until one or two years later. Only then will we know whether the correct interpretation of the economic data available at the time was made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman takes the view that there is less risk in an increase in inflation than the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor believe there to be. But only history will show whether we have made the right judgments.
I believe that the Government are right to err on the side of caution. All the evidence suggests that economies that perform the best are those whose authorities take the most rigorous line against inflation. To risk overheating the economy so soon after coming out of a recession would be a sad failure indeed.
The Paymaster General rather disappointed the House this evening. We expect more of him in these debates. It was evident that he did not submit this convergence plan, which is to he sent off to the European Commission, with a great deal of relish. He did not say, "Hurrah! We're on track to get into the single currency." I detected a note of discomfort in his presentation.
The purpose of these debates on the Government's convergence plan is to highlight the fact that we are locked into a progressional timetable. We are fixed into a machine that makes us submit plans towards an objective over which we have little control. I have heard that this timetable is regarded by the Government as artificial. The more we hear of the development of the Government view of the prospect of a single currency, the more distance we detect between that end and the Government's embrace of it.
Whatever the Government's attitude may be, and however determined, towards the end of the convergence period, the Government may be not to participate in a single currency, the fact is that they are stuck on the tracks. They are being driven down the track towards meeting certain objectives—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does this not have a great feeling of déjà vu about it? The timetable is certainly one of the key problems. It may force countries to attempt to converge when their natural instincts, based

on the performance of their economies, dictate otherwise. I am reminded of the Schlieffen plan—the great first world war German plan to knock out France. It was based wholly on railway timetables. Many historians now believe that that became the cause of the first world war, because, once started, there was no way to stop the plan being put into effect—and it ended in disaster.

Mr. Jenkin: I have great sympathy with that analogy. To a certain extent, it was the intention of the Maastricht treaty. It was not designed to create an opportunity for economic and monetary union across Europe. That opportunity existed anyway, whatever the treaty arrangements. Businesses can opt to use a single currency. Member states can opt to fix their exchange rates with each other. They can even share a currency—and all without this timetable.
The timetable is, of course, political. It is not an economic weapon; it is a political weapon. The whole of Europe has been put in the straitjacket of an artificial timetable because France and Germany are determined to achieve political union. It is a tool to achieve a political end. We are playing a highly dangerous game if we put the European economies into a straitjacket for political purposes, regardless of the political consequences.
Another benefit has emerged from this debate: I detect a mood of consensus across the Chamber. Not only has the Prime Minister, speaking to the Conservative Way Forward, introduced the possibility of new criteria to qualify Britain's possible participation in a single currency; we have also heard the same idea from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong). The hon. Lady thinks that levels of employment are important. She shares that opinion with the Governor of the Bank of England.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told us that he wanted to introduce some extra criteria. He described the economy in Britain as possibly not strong enough to sustain monetary union. Those criteria are not in the Maastricht treaty. The hon. Gentleman is introducing new criteria for monetary union. I detect in the Chamber a consensus that the timetable for economic and monetary union is unrealistic and unreasonable. Perhaps the House should point that out to our European partners, who are more politically obsessed by the objective, and perhaps unreasonably so. They may be in danger of damaging their economies. We see France holding on manically to the franc fort policy, to the detriment of the stability of property and asset prices in France, of employment rates and of growth. We were discussing banking at length, and I am reminded of the nickname of one of France's largest institutions, "Debit" Lyonnais.
What were the risks to which the Governor referred? He was referring to the danger of seeking to impose a uniform monetary policy on several countries in the European Community. We had experience of the risk quite recently. When we were in the exchange rate mechanism we sought to impose the same monetary discipline on several countries in the European Community. What was the result? What might have been an appropriate monetary policy for Germany post-reunification, with all the inflationary effects of funding development in eastern Germany, became a completely inappropriate monetary discipline for the United Kingdom, France and Italy. That


demonstrates more graphically than anything else can the risks of applying a single monetary policy before absolute, complete and permanent convergence has been achieved.

Mr. Tim Devlin: My hon. Friend has alluded to a great consensus across the Chamber. Perhaps he will briefly think about monetary union within the United Kingdom. As he knows, since 1707 there has been a monetary union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Yet the financial and economic conditions in Scotland and the north of England now are different from those in the south of England. The policy that is followed in London may not be appropriate to all parts of the UK. Why is the position not the same on a greater scale throughout Europe?

Mr. Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for asking me that question. We have had a single currency in the UK for a long time. It followed political union. The two things go very much hand in hand. There are points at which the monetary policy that is pursued throughout the UK for the benefit of the entire UK is more appropriate for some parts of the country than for others.
During the 1980s, for example, we had strong asset growth in the south and strong development of services, whereas in the north and in Scotland we saw the decline of old-fashioned manufacturing industries, the decline of property prices and wide differentials forming. We coped with economic disparities across the single currency area of the United Kingdom because we have huge fiscal transfers. The Government control about 45 per cent. of the national wealth. Public expenditure in Scotland, for example, is about 18 per cent. higher in the current year than it is in England. In Northern Ireland it is about 40 per cent. higher. At the moment, we are planning a European Community, and a single currency across the European Community, in which the European Union will control resources amounting only to 2.26 per cent. of the Europe-wide gross domestic product. Even in the single currency area of the United States, the Federal Government control some 17 per cent. of American GDP. The only way in which a single currency can be sustained across an area of wide disparities is to have huge, compensating fiscal measures.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Jenkin: If I may continue, the Treasury did some work on the subject for the European Community during the 1970s. A Mr. MacDougall prepared a report and he reckoned that the very minimum that the European Community would have to levy in taxation to sustain a single currency across Europe would be 7 per cent. of Community GDP. That would increase the European Community budget to some £333 billion at today's prices, which is considerably larger than it is today and would increase our contribution to some £70 billion.

Mr. Devlin: rose

Mr. Jenkin: If my hon. Friend is prepared to explain that to his constituents, I wish him good luck. Nevertheless, benefits in the current arrangements are considerably cheaper and easier to finance and do not carry the same risks, as demonstrated by the Governor of the Bank of England.
The last question that I want to ask is: who wants this single currency? We are told that business men want it, but I do not think that that is the case. Following a survey, the CBI claimed that a large majority favoured a single currency, yet it remarked in its own survey that only 12 per cent. were enthusiastic about a more federal approach. That would seem to rule out a single currency for a start. More interestingly, only 28 per cent. of the sample said that a single currency was a necessary condition for a single market. Why does the CBI go round telling everybody that business wants a single currency?
Even more interestingly, the authors of an excellent letter in The Times on 9 February said:
even if the natural core of European federalist countries were tied into ecu, by far the larger part of Britain's trade and investment would continue to be conducted outside those countries in a wide variety of national currencies.
Plainly, a single currency is not indispensable to expanding exports".
That letter was signed by luminaries such as Michael Edwardes, Owen Green, Lord Hanson, Stanley Kalms, Christopher Wates, Garry Weston and many, many more.
The fact is that British business is not enthusiastic about a single currency and that only a tiny proportion of our trade relates to the possible hard-core area of a single currency—less than 30 per cent. of our external trade or 8.7 per cent. of our gross domestic product. Why inflict an absurd, foreign-controlled monetary policy on the British economy for the sake of 8.7 per cent. of our gross domestic product.

Mr. John Butterfill: I have to agree, on one point at least, with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin): I do not think that there is the remotest chance of anything but a handful of nations meeting the convergence criteria in the Community by 1999, let alone by 1997.
Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to explain why, from a sedentary position, I used the word frit during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for which you admonished me. I did not know that it was an unparliamentary expression; it has been used fairly frequently by hon. Members of all parties. I used the word because my hon. Friend was suggesting that under article 103 we were compelled to go down the convergence criteria. That of course is not so. Compulsion would take place only if we were to move to stage 3 of monetary union, which could not take place until after 1997, and probably not until 1999, which would be under article 104 of the treaty. We would have had to have agreed to proceed for there to be any compulsion.
Guidelines have now come from the Council of Ministers and it is informative to consider those guidelines to discover whether hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree that they are entirely desirable. According to the guidelines, the economic objective is sustainable, non-inflationary and employment-creating growth. No one would disagree with that. The guidelines include reduction in unemployment. Does anyone suggest that that is undesirable?
According to the guidelines, there should be a strengthening of economic convergence. If we are in a trading area, it must be desirable to bring some of our


partners up to the level of the more prosperous nations. It is also appropriate to consider the extent to which what is in the Red Book, which we are presenting to the Community, achieves some of those objectives.
With regard to sustainable, non-inflationary and employment-creating growth, we are now seeing non-inflationary growth. We have not had such a long period of low inflation for 25 years. Growth has been continuing for some time now. Indeed, we have a little problem in that growth is perhaps running too far ahead and we have had to correct it to ensure that it is sustainable.
As for reductions in unemployment, if we look at the rest of the Community, unemployment is increasing. Almost uniquely in the United Kingdom, unemployment is decreasing. The only area in which we are perhaps not succeeding is that of the strengthening of economic convergence. As convergence in other states is unlikely to take place, I believe that the timetable for monetary union, as envisaged by the treaty, is way out and extremely unlikely to be achieved.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Butterfill: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend because he refused to give way to me. Despite being asked several times, my hon. Friend refused to give way to me.
To meet those objectives, the guidelines advocate price and exchange rate stability. Price stability has certainly been achieved. Apart from unfortunate recent events, exchange rates have been unusually stable for some considerable time. With regard to sound public finances, we need only read the Red Book to discover what has happened with regard to reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement. The Labour party said that that was completely unattainable. Labour Members said that the PSBR was likely to continue to grow. They did not believe that we could meet the objectives set out in the Budget two years ago or in last year's Budget. However, not only have those objectives been met, but they have been exceeded.
The guidelines suggest measures such as reducing the indirect costs of labour. Conservative Members would certainly agree with that objective. The guidelines include the completion of the internal market. The internal market was proposed by the Government and a single market is now one of the Government's proud achievements which have benefited our industry. Conservative Members would also agree with more flexible labour markets, although I am not sure whether the Labour party would agree to that. The Commission guidelines also refer to pay moderation. I have not seen much sign of encouragement of pay moderation from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), but I was no clearer at the end of her remarks as to why she was inviting Labour Members to vote against the motion. Of course, she and her party have differences with the Government over economic policy. She gave some rather disjointed examples of what they were, but they were not the subject of today's debate. What we are deciding this evening is not whether we approve the Government's Budget policies; that was settled in last

year's Budget. Rather, we are discussing whether we approve the sending of appropriate information in the Red Book to the European Commission, as required by treaty. The hon. Lady did not even touch on whether the Labour party thought that we should do that.
In the few remaining minutes, I shall try to pick up some of the other points that have been raised, in particular the status of the convergence criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) set out the four main headings of low inflation, low long-term interest rates, no excessive deficits and a degree of exchange rate stability. The point has been made several times, most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), that those are good and valid policy aims, regardless of whether they may one day pave the way for monetary union.
It is true also that the United Kingdom is doing particularly well as regards the criteria. Our Budget deficit is coming down fast, and it is expected to be below 3 per cent. of gross domestic product by 1996. Our inflation rate, our interest rates and our general Government debt are also all comfortably within the reference limits set out in the treaty and the associated protocols.
Of course those are tough criteria. In answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), may I say that low inflation and sustainable growth are not easily achieved. The growth rate of 4 per cent., which we achieved last year, combined with low inflation, is something that very few Governments since the second world war have ever glimpsed.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way; I am answering some points that he raised, and I have only a few more minutes.
Of course such matters require difficult decisions on taxation. From time to time, it may be necessary to raise interest rates to keep inflation down, but the prize is worth it. I emphasise that those are good policy aims, regardless of whether they are required or recommended as part of the treaty of Rome.
The other point which I wish to emphasise is that the debate is taking place under stage 2 of monetary union, which began more than a year ago. Economic policy and monetary policy throughout that time have remained firmly in national hands. Indeed, that is why it is the Red Book, flowing from our own national Budget, which forms the basis of the information that we are supplying to the Commission.
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who talked about sanctions and suggested penalties, that they have no part to play in stage 2 of EMU. The only sanction, if one may call it that, that is open to the Commission or to the Council of Ministers is to make recommendations. Indeed, it has been recommended that we should continue to bring down our Budget deficit, which we have every intention of doing.
Another point of which I must remind the House is the copper-bottomed nature of the United Kingdom's protocol to the treaty, which states that the UK is not
obliged or committed to move to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union without a separate decision to do so by its government and Parliament".


In addition to that, under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the so-called Maastricht Act—notification to the Council of a United Kingdom intention to join stage 3 also requires a prior Act of Parliament.
We have had some railway metaphors. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) introduced into the debate the Schlieffen plan. At the risk of correcting him, may I say that it was the mobilisation of the Russian army at the start of the first world war which required railways and which was so complicated that it could not be stopped. It was A. J. P. Taylor—I know that I am right on this point—who said that the first world war was the culmination of the railway age. Whether in this or in previous debates, we have always been regaled with colourful motoring or railway metaphors about whether we are in danger of missing the train leaving the station or whether we are on the wrong branch line. The truth is, however, that in terms of EMU we can watch the train assembling on the continent and decide at the right moment whether it is in the national interest for us to join it. We are in no sense committed to joining the third stage of monetary union. Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say more about that on Wednesday.
The convergence criteria, on which we touched earlier, do not simply stop at the four headings already described. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also raised the need to address the deep-seated structural differences in the European economies, and the Governor of the Bank of England has drawn attention to the implications of differences in productivity growth and the need for flexible labour markets. The question whether we can safely relinquish the mechanism of adjustment of nominal exchange rates or whether we should continue to insist on that possibility remains open. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) not to assume that the entire argument is over, bar the shouting.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked about the social and economic goals in article 2 of the treaty. The Red Book sets out the tax and expenditure policies across the board, including a large sum to be spent on social security and the environment. The Budget included not just a new landfill tax but fuel taxes designed in part for us to meet our carbon dioxide reduction commitment. The social and environmental goals are in the Red Book, and will form part of the report that we shall make to the Commission in due course.
The motion is to approve the sending of information to the European Commission, as required by articles 103 and 104c of the treaty. In 1993 the Government gave an assurance that the terms of section 5 of the Maastricht Act would be strictly observed, and that the House's approval was therefore necessary before the sending of the required information; yet this year the Labour party has again contrived a case for voting against the motion, which would entail a breach of the treaty obligations.
We are used to the Labour party's turning somersaults on Europe, but this must constitute a new low. Labour Members show craven subservience to the European Community in regard to big issues when British interests are at stake, but invite the House to break a treaty

obligation: they would block the sending of a report that is required. I invite the House to show a good deal more sense than that, and to approve the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 183.

Division No. 87]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dunn, Bob


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ashby, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldly, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bates, Michael
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Sir Graham
Gorst, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Jack, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jenkin, Bernard






Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stem, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Major, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patrick, Sir Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Derek Conway.


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Gordon, Mildred


Ainger, Nick
Graham, Thomas


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Allen, Graham
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Grocott, Bruce


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Hain, Peter


Armstrong, Hilary
Hall, Mike


Ashton, Joe
Hanson, David


Austin-Walker, John
Hardy, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Harvey, Nick


Battle, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Heppell, John


Beggs, Roy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hodge, Margaret


Benton, Joe
Hoey, Kate


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Betts, Clive
Home Robertson, John


Blunkett, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Boateng, Paul
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hutton, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Illsley, Eric


Burden, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Byers, Stephen
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cam, Jamie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jowell, Tessa


Church, Judith
Keen, Alan


Clapham, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Khabra, Piara S


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Clelland, David
Livingstone, Ken


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAllion, John


Cohen, Harry
McFall, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mackinlay, Andrew


Corston, Jean
McMaster, Gordon


Cousins, Jim
McWilliam, John


Cox, Tom
Mahon, Alice


Cummings, John
Marek, Dr. John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Davidson, Ian
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Donohoe, Brian H
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dowd, Jim
Milburn, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Enright, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Etherington, Bill
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Foulkes, George
O'Hara, Edward


Fyfe, Maria
Olner, Bill


Galloway, George
Pearson, Ian


George, Bruce
Pickthall, Colin


Gerrard, Neil
Pike, Peter L


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pope, Greg


Godman, Dr Norman A
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godsiff, Roger
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Primarolo, Dawn
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rendel, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Timms, Stephen


Rooney, Terry
Touhig, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mrs. Babara Roche and Mr. Peter Mandleson.


Stevenson, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Orders of the Day — Airport Safety

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Jim Cunningham: May I make it clear from the outset that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will participate in the debate because the airport under discussion is in his constituency?
I take this opportunity to thank Madam Speaker for granting me this debate on the safety of airports outside the capital. It is not necessarily about regional airports but the category that one might call "feeder airports", into which Coventry airport falls.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Transport in London has come along to reply to the debate and I hope that he will answer some of the points that I shall raise. I have corresponded with his Department from time to time. Will he confirm that the Government have made proposals regarding small airports and that it is purely a matter of parliamentary time before those are implemented?
This matter has been a consistent theme over the past 18 months, during which time I have tabled a number of questions regarding problems associated with Coventry airport. I even tabled, and hon. Members signed, an early-day motion in that endeavour. It could be said that it was a bipartisan approach because the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth signed it to demonstrate that I was not trying to hype up a political situation but rather deal with a problem that affects his and my constituencies.
Many residents in those areas have no choice whether they live beside an airport. After the war, council houses were built in Willenhall and the airport was used mainly for pleasure flights, with just one or two heavier aircraft using it a couple of times a month. Over the years, the airport's status has changed, so it must be considered in regulatory terms.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the air crash that happened a few days before Christmas in my constituency, killing three crew members and two handlers. It had a dramatic effect on residents not only in Willenhall but in Baginton and Coventry as a whole. Anyone who visited the scene that day would have been awestruck by the response of the emergency services. Neither the residents of the area nor I could criticise their response, but, as the day developed, the traumatised residents felt frustrated about the fact that, over the years, they had predicted what could happen at that airport. It is not for me to apportion blame. That will be done at another inquiry, the report of which we will probably receive in about six months. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
The residents of Willenhall and Baginton, as well as those in other parts of Coventry, have complained for a long time about the frequency of flights, particularly at night; the height of aircraft on their approach to landing; whether aircraft stick to the flight path; the occasional dumping of fuel; and the general problem of aircraft noise.
The problems at the airport have been exacerbated by the export of live animals. As a result of a recent accident, a young lady who lived in my constituency was killed. No doubt we will hear in coming months about what


happened. I was not there and I am not aware of all the facts, so it is not for me to apportion blame, but no doubt all those facts will be established. The export of live animals, particularly at weekends, has aggravated the problems experienced by the residents. A public meeting about them is scheduled for Friday night. The export of those animals has introduced another significant factor—the larger aircraft used for that transport.
Although the controversy surrounding the export of live animals remains unresolved, the cost of policing that trade is expected to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Given the precarious state of Warwickshire county council's budget and all its other problems, it could well do without that cost. I will not dwell on that now, but I should be interested to know whether the Government intend to help the county to meet that considerable cost.
Some weeks ago, a public meeting was held which was attended by 500 residents not just from Coventry, but beyond, and organisations representing other residents who were unable to attend. They expressed their concern about the issues I have raised tonight. I accept that the Government have prepared their own proposals about the use of smaller airports, but questions about the size of the aircraft using those airports, the age of the aircraft and the frequency of safety checks—the Government say that they are conducted every three years, as well as being conducted periodically—were unresolved. I do not agree with the Government's approach, because I believe that the number of hours flown should be the key consideration.
It is also important to consider the possible relocation of Coventry airport. All sorts of costs have been bandied about. It would certainly cost a great deal to re-site the runway, but, given the additional factors that have exacerbated the problems at the airport, one hopes that the Government will consider that proposal.
The Government's proposals also did not make it clear who would pay for the noise amelioration schemes. The onus has been put on captains to make on-the-spot safety checks of their aircraft. I am sure that the Minister will elaborate on that further. I hope that I have not taken that matter out of context.
The local authority lacks the ability to refuse operators the use of Coventry airport as long as the freight operator has a proper licence for the use of the airport, although it may be in the public interest for the authority to be able to refuse certain types of freight operators the use of airports such as Coventry. Had the local authority been able to intervene in the issue of air freight transport of calves to the continent, perhaps some of the problems would not have arisen in relation to that airport. Those aspects should be considered by the Secretary of State for Transport or a proper public inquiry so that we can introduce proper regulations.
The Secretary of State has produced the Department's document or its proposals, depending on the way in which one chooses to interpret it. The proposals are:
Department to commission and consult on guidance to create a national framework to assist preparation of noise amelioration schemes
Department to encourage aerodromes to review existing noise amelioration measures and their enforcement, and arrangements for local accountability.
Department to open discussions with BAA and local consultative committees about making Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports more responsible and locally accountable for their noise control measures.

Why cannot we do the same thing in relation to airports such as Baginton airport
New enabling power for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including for ground noise.
New power of designation to replace existing sections 5 and 78–80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and replace them with new power for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to compel aerodromes to prepare noise amelioration schemes.
Designated aerodromes to prepare noise amelioration scheme, consult locally and agree it with 'lead' local authority".
Where disputes take place, the Secretary of State will have the power to settle them.
New powers of enforcement to enable local authorities to take action against designated aerodromes who do not enforce schemes.
`Call-in' power to be available for Secretary of State to approve schemes himself.
These new powers to be applied to all other aerodromes from largest airports to smallest private sites, including those used by helicopters.
In conclusion, it is noticeable that no help has been given to residents outside London, with the possible exception of Birmingham, with noise prevention schemes. The residents in Coventry and the surrounding area hope that the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the representations that Members from both Conservative and Labour parties have made, will announce a date and a time for the debate on his 1993 proposals, so that the House can amend them and vote to make those proposals law.

Mr. James Pawsey: I thank the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for allowing me the courtesy of intervening in the debate. I am grateful to him for the time that he has given me. I also acknowledge the attendance at the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), and the hon. Member for Coventry—

Mr. Jim Cunningham: North-East.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I meant the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).
Therefore, three Coventry Members and one Warwickshire Member are present for this important Adjournment debate.
Coventry airport, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East says, is in my constituency, and has been since boundary changes in 1983. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke with considerable knowledge. That does not surprise me, as I am aware that he is the former leader of Coventry city council and obviously his experience and knowledge has shown through in the debate that he opened this evening.
In the past 10 years, I have experienced, together with hon. Members on both sides of the House, a substantial increase in the number of complaints about the noise and nuisance that has been caused by aircraft flying in and out of Coventry airport.
I must make a special reference to the night flights. For my sins, I happen to live some distance away from Coventry airport, but none the less from time to time I hear the aircraft passing over my roof. At times they seem to be coming through the roof, not over it—although no doubt that is something of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to say that the number of night flights


has grown substantially over the past few years. Coventry airport is now one of the busiest freight airfields in the United Kingdom.
Part of the problem has been caused by the fact that many houses were built reasonably close to the airport during the years when it was enjoying very little popularity and only a small number of light aircraft were landing on and flying from the strip. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East was right to draw attention to the problems recently caused when an aircraft crashed in his constituency, killing members of the crew and two animal handlers. That was a disaster that could easily have been a catastrophe—had the aircraft been only a few feet lower, it would have landed in a densely populated housing estate at Willenhall, with severe loss of life. It was only by the grace of God that a disaster did not become a catastrophe.
The problem is further worsened by the fact that there are now a substantial number of live animal flights from the airfield. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said, there has already been one fatal accident in which a young woman was killed. The demonstrations and protests continue on the site. I am concerned about the growing risk to public safety. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high cost to Warwickshire taxpayers of policing the site and I have been advised that the police operations on the site currently cost about £27,000 a day—a substantial sum. The animal flights should be halted before there are further injuries or fatalities.
I am well aware of the consultative committees that have been set up to supervise airfields—there is one at Coventry. But they lack the necessary teeth and do not have sufficient bite. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is unable to say that he would like to strengthen or beef up the consultative committees, perhaps he might say a word about the increased powers that his Department should take on. If we cannot strengthen the consultative committees, we should be looking to introduce legislation to give the Department greater powers to deal with growing aircraft noise and nuisance, and to study the size and type of aircraft using the smaller provincial airports and the number of hours that are being flown.
My constituents suffer acutely from the problem. I have constituents who live in the villages of Baginton and Stoneleigh, and there are many other adjoining villages such as Binley Woods, which are outside my constituency, where residents are also affected. Clearly it is time that proper controls were exercised.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for raising the important subject of airport safety. I have noted that all three of his neighbours—the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—are here tonight. I appreciate that their presence underlines the importance that the people of Coventry and the parliamentary representatives attach to the issue.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that, in safety terms, airports outside London are treated no differently from airports that serve London. I note what he said about the control of airports lying in the hands of local authorities. He mentioned the local authority's frustration at not being able to intervene in determining which flights should use the airport. I hope that he will appreciate that it is important that responsibility for technical and operational safety issues relating to civil aviation safety in the United Kingdom rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.
Under the Air Navigation Order 1989, any aerodrome used by aeroplanes flying for the public transport of passengers or for flying training must be licensed by the CAA. Before the CAA grants a licence for an aerodrome, it needs to be satisfied that the aerodrome is safe for use by aircraft, having regard in particular to the physical characteristics of the aerodrome and its surroundings. It must also be satisfied that the person applying for the licence is competent to ensure that the aerodrome and its airspace are safe for the use of aircraft. In addition, the Civil Aviation Authority helps to safeguard the safety of both aircraft passengers and people on the ground by ensuring that aircraft registered in the United Kingdom are maintained and operated to the highest possible standards.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's immediate concerns about airport safety, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, originate from the recent crash of an Air Algerie aircraft at Coventry airport. As the hon. Gentleman stated correctly, that accident is now the subject of a formal investigation by the air accident investigation branch and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it at this stage. The air accident investigation branch will publish a report of its investigation in due course.
I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date for the release of the report, simply because I do not have that information to hand—I am not sure that the inquiry team would be able to give a final date at this stage. The report will, if appropriate, make safety recommendations based on the lessons learned from the accident.
I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East expressed about the export of live animals. I hope that both hon. Members will understand that I cannot come to any conclusion this evening on issues which derive from incidents which occurred on the ground at Coventry airport. However, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East made some important remarks about one very sad incident.
Although I appreciate that the Air Algerie crash on the approach to Coventry airport has caused considerable concern to local residents—and to all of those living in the vicinity of major airports—the reality is that aircraft pose a very small risk to people on the ground. The House may be reassured to know that, since the Civil Aviation Authority started recording data on aviation accidents and incidents in 1976, no one on the ground has been killed or injured in accidents involving aircraft taking off or landing at United Kingdom airports.
Anticipating the topics of discussion at the public meeting which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech, it might be helpful if I confirm that the aircraft involved in the accident at Coventry was foreign registered. That obviously raises some particular questions on which


he touched. As with any foreign aircraft operating in the UK, it was required to comply with the internationally agreed minimum safety standards set out in the annexes to the Chicago convention.
Where we have concerns that a particular foreign aircraft is not complying with those standards, we will continue to arrange for the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a safety check on that aircraft. For example, in view of concern about the safety of aircraft involved in the transport of livestock from Coventry airport, my Department has taken the additional measure of asking the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct inspections of non-European Economic Area aircraft used for such operations. The inspections are aimed at ensuring that those aircraft are airworthy. My Department will not issued permits for such flights until it is satisfied that the aircraft meet international safety standards.
Because of general concerns about the safety of some foreign aircraft, we welcome recent international activity. In particular, we endorse the US Federal Aviation Administration view that the safety standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation should be applied as effectively as possible. In all honesty, the ICAO system is the only practical way of ensuring global aviation safety standards, but there is a need to ensure that system operates effectively. I am delighted to report that as a result of our intensive lobbying, the ICAO council has agreed to establish a safety oversight programme. We will maintain our strong interest by participating in ICAO working groups.
We are participating also in the task force set up by the European civil aviation conference to consider further arrangements to improve the overall safety standards of foreign aircraft flying to Europe. That task force's first report is due shortly.
Protection of the public on the ground near the busiest airports—this applies to the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth—is addressed by the Department by the establishment of public safety zones. Those are funnel-shaped areas, extending outwards from the ends of runways, within which development is controlled through the planning system. Experience has shown that, although the risk of an aircraft crash is small, accidents are most likely to occur near the ends of the runways during landing or take-off.
Where public safety zones have been established, the statutory requirement is that local planning authorities are required to consult the Civil Aviation Authority before

granting permission for the development of land within a zone. The objective is to limit the number of people who may be in those areas at any one time and so be at greatest risk. If it is considered that a proposed development will increase unduly the number of people at risk, particularly in the part of the zone closest to the runway ends, advice will be given to the planning authority that the development should not be permitted.
Not all airports have public safety zones. The risk generally increases with the amount of traffic. At airports where traffic is relatively light, the risk is considered insufficient to justify zones. Traffic at Coventry airport is currently below the level that triggers establishment of zones. Even had public safety zones been established at Coventry airport, the recent crash would have occurred just outside them.
As I announced to the House on 21 July last year, a review of policy on public safety zones is currently under way. That commenced by updating previous studies of accident data to cover the years 1989 to 1993. Worldwide data are used because, fortunately, UK aircraft accidents are relatively rare. No conclusions have yet been reached, but I shall let the House know the outcome of that review when it has been completed.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned particular concerns relating to night flights. I understand how difficult it is to balance the economic growth that airports and airport activities generate with the considerable annoyance to local residents caused by flights at night. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about that disturbance, and are keen for the Government to bring forward the Bill on the control of aircraft noise that we outlined in the March 1993 report to which my hon. Friend referred.
My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping assured the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that the only reason for delay in bringing forward a Bill is the pressure of other business. That remains a clear statement of the Government's position. We appreciate local concern that there is a need to apply greater regulation. We continue to believe that represents the right way forward. We will—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve midnight.